Discipline and misconduct at the workplace justify dismissal; judicial review cannot re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact from disciplinary bodies.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

All these Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 14.03.2024, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.25064 and 28129 of 2011, which were filed challenging the Award dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.74 of 2008, therefore, all the Writ Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The employer filed W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024 assailing the common order dated 14.03.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25064 and 28129 of 2011, respectively, whereunder W.P.No.25064 of 2011 was dismissed and W.P.No.28129 of 2011 was allowed quashing the impugned Award of the Labour Court insofar as treating the workman as a fresh workman and also treating the out of service period as ‘not on duty’ with continuity of service.

3. The workman filed W.A.No.649 of 2024 against the order passed in W.P.No.28129 of 2011, insofar as not granting monetary benefits for the out of service period though the same was ordered to be treated as ‘on duty’.

4. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Labour Court.

5. Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt N.Seethalaxmi, learned counsel on record for the appellants in W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024, and the respondents in W.A.No.649 of 2024, and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.649 of 2024 and the respondent in W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024.

6. The factual matrix of the case in brief as averred by the workman before the Labour Court is that initially, he was appointed as probation workman on 01.05.1995; that after completion of probation, his services were confirmed on 01.11.1997; that on 07.02.2008, when he was on duty on Machine No.4 Band Building-II as Operator, at about 11 am., the Supervisor instructed him to load 1010 I cut roll and accordingly, he loaded the same; that after completion of the said work, again the workman asked the Supervisor as to which cut roll is to be loaded, for which the Supervisor advised to load 1056 cut role and accordingly, the workman attended to the same. It was further case of the workman that when the Supervisor was searching for breaker cut roll at Breaker stand storage, suddenly a small breaker cut roll accidentally slipped from the stand and fell on the floor touching the workman’s feet, due to which he raised the hands in pain and in that process, one of his hands touched the Supervisor who was standing beside him; that he never behaved in angry mood with the Supervisor and he did not slap the Supervisor either intentionally or unintentionally, as alleged by the Supervisor.

7. On the other hand, the case of the employer as narrated in the counter filed before the Labour Court is that the workman was assigned the job of Band Building Operator; that on 07.02.2008 at about 10 am, the Supervisor instructed the workman to load 1090 I cut roll on the machine as per the schedule, however, the workman denied to load the same and disobeyed the instructions of the Supervisor despite the Supervisor explaining that as per work schedule, 1090 I cut roll has to be loaded on the machine otherwise there will be less purity of production; that without following the instructions of the Supervisor, the workman loaded 1010 I cut roll as against 1090 I cut roll without knowledge and consent of the Supervisor.

7.1. It is further case of the employer that at about 12.30 pm., the Supervisor instructed the workman to load 1056 I cut roll on the machine, but a