The Labour Court has the power to interfere with the findings of guilt and quantum of punishment awarded by the employer in a domestic inquiry under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Award dated November 3, 1993, passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, is being challenged in this petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. In order to decide whether the impugned award suffers from an error of law so as to require our interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we may make brief reference to the facts.

2. Respondent No.2 joined service of the State Transport, Punjab on January 19, 1978 on his appointment as a conductor. His services were subsequently taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. A domestic inquiry was initiated against respondent No.2 vide charge-sheet dated June 20, 1984 on the allegation that he has collected Rs.3.40 from 5 passengers without issuing tickets to them and had thus committed embezzlement of the Corporation funds. A detailed inquiry was held by Sh. J. S. Juneja, S. D. O. (Electricity,) who submitted a report that one part of the charge has been proved and the other part of it has not been proved. On the basis of this report a show-cause notice (Annexue P1) was issued to Respondent No.2 with a proposal to remove him from service. Respondent No.2 submitted his reply and opposed the penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, issued order dated October 16, 1985 removing respondent No.2 from service.

3. Aggrieved by this removal from service, Respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide Punjab Government notification dated December 14, 1988. Respondent No.2 pleaded before the Labour Court that the punishment imposed upon him suffers from violation of the statutory rules as well as the principles of natural justice and that the findings recorded by the employer were perverse. The Municipal Corporation pleaded that Respondent No.2 had been punished after a regular inquiry and, therefore, the Labour Court should not interfere with the action of the Corporation. After considering the rival cases, the Labour Court held that the order of punishment passed by the Corporation was patently arbitrary inasmuch as the competent authority had not applied its mind to the record of the case while imposing the penalty of removal from service on the workman. The Labour Court also held that the punishment was quite harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of allegations and, therefore, the same deserved interference under Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

4. First contention of Shri Varinder Pal Singh is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry. Learned counsel argued that holding of a disciplinary inquiry is an absolute prerogative of the Management and the Labour Court/tribunal is not empowered to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the employer in this regard. Second contention urged by Shri Singh is that even if the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were erroneous, the Labour Court should not have acted as an Appellate Authority by substituting its own views regarding the allegations levelled against respondent-workman. Lastly Shri Singh argued that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the employer. He argued that the only power which vested with the Labour Court under Sec.11-A of the Act was to remand the case to the employer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Shri Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the workman, argued that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal stands enlarged with the insertion of Sec.11-A and now the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal is vested with the power not only to reappreciate the evidence recorded during domestic departmental inquiry, but it has also the power to reverse the findings recorded by the employer on the mertis of the allegations. He subm