Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Toofani Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 inqui
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.
Under Section 11A, labour courts can deem discharge disproportionate and order reinstatement with partial back wages for misconduct amid mitigating medical negligence, even post-fair inquiry.
The Labour Court cannot modify disciplinary punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct; failure to provide cogent reasons for modification renders the interfere....
The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregulariti....
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings r....
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
The court affirmed that once a reference is made under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court must adjudicate the dispute, and upheld the fairness of the domestic inquiry conducted against the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, emphasizing the power of the Tribunal to set aside the order of ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
