Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
D And H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Bindeshewari Prasad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding misconduct and termination (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding reinstatement and conduct (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on the principles of law and misconduct (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. ratio decidendi emphasizing appropriate punishment for misconduct (Para 11) |
| 5. final conclusion denying reinstatement and upholding termination (Para 12) |
ORDER :
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Introduction These appeals have been filed by the employer as well as workmen both against the common order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in bunch of Misc.Petitions. Looking to the similitude of the cases, all the appeals are being decided by this common order, for the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.A. No. 834/2024.
1.2 Initially objection regarding maintainability of the appeals was taken by the registry of this Court, which was overruled by the Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional Forest Officer , reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 109 .
1.3 The point of challenge on behalf of the employer is that even after the charges of misconduct of
The court affirmed that reinstatement of workers is unjustified following proven misconduct of violence, emphasizing the necessity of discipline in the workplace and setting aside prior orders of rei....
Discipline and misconduct at the workplace justify dismissal; judicial review cannot re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact from disciplinary bodies.
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 interfere with the punishment order if the departmental inquiry is fair and proper.
The court upheld the Labour Court's ruling that the dismissal of the workman was disproportionate to the misconduct proven, awarding compensation instead of reinstatement.
workman has retired from the services and, therefore, whatever benefit is available to the workman, after her retirement, needs to be granted to her due to the order of reinstatement with continuity ....
The Labour Court's interference with the dismissal of an employee was unjustified as the dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct, despite the leave balance.
Proven misconduct does not automatically justify termination; the punishment must be proportionate and free from victimization.
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
