SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J.
State Bank of India - Petitioner
Versus
The Zonal Secretary State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union - Respondent
W.P.No.8670 of 2012 And M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 17-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.C.Mohan for M/s.King and Partridge
For the Respondent: Ms.T.Rajeswari & Ms.C.Najitha Shahabas Legal Aid Counsel

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to modify minor disciplinary punishments unless under Section 11A for discharge or dismissal cases, reaffirming that fair enquiry findings cannot be overturned without evidence of unfair practices.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A - Writ of Certiorari - Disciplinary action - Punishment of stoppage of increment for ten years reduced to two years by Tribunal, which the court found beyond its jurisdiction - The Labour Court may exercise powers under Section 11A only in cases of discharge or dismissal, not minor punishments, and thus interfered without authority - The enquiry was held fairly, and no allegations of unfair practices were established. (Paras 9, 11)

(B) Judicial Review - The power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to matters that suffer from perversity, which was not the case here - The judicial authority should not replace the management's disciplinary decisions if the enquiry proceedings were duly conducted. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision to reduce the punishment of an employee who caused injury during work hours. The case involved a member of an employee union who had a disciplinary penalty imposed for causing injury to a coworker.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment as it pertains to a minor penalty and that its decision was not justified.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the authority of the Labour Tribunal to modify minor punishments and adherence to procedures outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor punishments are not subject to revision under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Labour Court should not interfere if the earlier enquiry was conducted fairly and without allegations of prejudice.

Result: Writ petition allowed, Central Government Industrial Tribunal's order set aside.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to order dated 24.08.2011 in I.D.No.82 of 2009 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that one Senthil Kumar, a member of the respondent union was working as Messenger at Rajapalayam Branch. It was reported that on 16.10.2003 the said Senthil Kumar caused bleeding injury in the neck of one Prabakaran another workman in the same branch and hence, he was called upon to submit explanation and after careful consideration of the explanation submitted by the said Senthil Kumar, the disciplinary authority issued charge sheet dated 01.03.2004 to him and after enquiry, vide order dated 14.02.2006 imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for ten years with effect from 14.02.2006 and aggrieved by the same, the said Senthil Kumar preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the punishment.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the respondent raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.82 of 2009 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Chennai and the Tribunal passed the impugned order reducing the punishment of stoppage of increment for ten years with effect from 14.02.2006 as the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with effect from 14.02.2006.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the present case is not the case of discharge or dismissal, the punishment imposed is only stoppage of increment and the respondent union raised industrial dispute under Section 2k of the Industrial Disputes Act, in which the Tribunal have no power to exercise Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, the Tribunal without any jurisdiction modified the punishment from ten years to two years, which is not sustainable one. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 [South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and Others]

5.The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that one Senthil Kumar, a member of the respondent union is alleged to have caused bleeding injury in the neck of one Prabakaran another workman in the same branch on 16.10.2003 but the same was established during enquiry, however, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for ten years with effect from 14.02.2006 and challenging the same, industrial dispute was raised before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Chennai and the Tribunal after adjudication modified the punishment to that of stoppage of increment for two years with effect from 14.02.2006, which cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since it does not suffer any perversity. In support of their contentions, the learned legal aid counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1737 [The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another]

6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.For better appreciation, Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is extracted hereunder:

“11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top