The Labour Court lacks the jurisdiction to modify punishments for minor infractions unless related to discharge or dismissal, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

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 Tribunal