The Labour Court must record subjective satisfaction regarding the proportionality of punishment before modifying a dismissal to a lesser penalty under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Writ Petition No.32426 of 2019 has been filed by the workman assailing the award dated 13.12.2018 published on 14.02.2019 only pertaining to imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments and allowing only 20% backwages to the petitioner.

2. Writ Petition No.15450 of 2019 has been filed by the employer assailing the award dated 13.12.2018 made by the Labour Court, Mirzapur published on 14.02.2019.

3. Both the writ petitions were connected by the earlier order and are being heard together and decided by a common order.

4. Facts leading to filing of the petitions are that the petitioner-Toofani Yadav was employed on the post of Potman on 21.07.1987 in the Establishment of the respondent no.3 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

5. Petitioner was promoted to the post of senior Potman. He was performing his duties as defined under the Standard Operative Procedure (SOP). It was on 13.10.2010, 14.10.2010 and 15.10.2010 when he was asked to perform the work of fitting carbon, he refused and said that it is not the work of senior Potman and the work of tapping is of C Grade Tapper, he was asked to sit.

6. A domestic inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, and a charge-sheet was issued on 19.10.2010. In the inquiry, he was found guilty and was dismissed from service on 01.03.2011.

7. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred by the Government exercising power under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1947") to the Labour Court, Mirzapur.

8. Initially, a preliminary issue was framed on 11.04.2017, which is as under:-

^^D;k Jfed ds izdj.k esa lsok;kstdksa }kjk dh x;h ?kjsyw tkap mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS rFkk D;k tkap esa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k gS\**

9. The Labour Court by order dated 29.09.2018 decided the preliminary issue framed above, which was in regard to whether the domestic inquiry conducted was valid and done following the procedure and principles of natural justice. The Labour Court found that as the petitioner refused to perform the work given by the employer and the inquiry conducted was according to the rules, no interference was required as due procedure was followed.

10. On 13.12.2018, the Labour Court considered the question of quantum of punishment relying upon the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court made an award and reduced the quantum of punishment from dismissal to stoppage of increments of salary for two years with 20% backwages. The award made on 13.12.2018 has been challenged by both the employer and the employee, hence both these writ petitions.

11. Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the Labour Court exercising power under Section 6 (2-A) of the Act of 1947 had proceeded to pass the order imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments and allowed only 20% backwages and the punishment so awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. He then contended that the workman on 13.10.2010, 14.10.2010 and 15.10.2010 had not refused to work, but had only apprised the management that it was not his duty to do the work assigned to him as and it was the work of C Grade Fitter and Settler.

12. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of K.V.S. Ram v. Bengalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2015 (144) FLR 994. Relevant para 9 is extracted here as under:-

"9. It is settled proposition of law that while considering the management's decision to dismiss or terminate the services of a workman, the Labour Court can interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Considering the delay in completing the enquiry and the age of the appellant and the f