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.

ORDER :

1. Writ Petition No.4310/2020 is by the workman challenging the award, denying reinstatement and consequential benefits despite the finding by the Labour Court that the penalty of dismissal imposed by the employer is disproportionate to the misconduct proved.

2. Writ Petition No.8630/2021 is by the employer aggrieved by the very same award of the Labour Court which has set aside the penalty of dismissal and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the proceedings are referred to as the employer and the workman.

4. The workman joined the employer's establishment in the year 2006. In the year 2014, disciplinary proceedings were initiated pursuant to charge memos dated 12.07.2014, 15.07.2014, 13.08.2014, 11.11.2014. It is relevant to notice that the charge memo dated 12.07.2014 was modified on 14.07.2014 to correct the typographical errors.

5. Two distinct domestic enquiries were held in respect of the charges referred to in the aforementioned charge memos.

6. The Enquiry Officer has recorded that the following charges are proved:

a. That the workman did not participate in half yearly and annual appraisal, despite clear instructions and directions;

b. The workman did not fill the requisite forms relating to appraisal as required;

c. On 05.07.2014 the workman abruptly left the IDP Training Session and thereby disobeyed the instructions and showed in-subordination;

d. Employee without permission of the Supervisors left the work place during working hours and gathered in front of Supervisor’s cabin and later, at M.D.’s cabin and caused disturbance at the work place.

e. Refusal to accept or take notice of charge sheet, order or any communication served either in person or in due course of post, or by notification in the factory’s notice boards and also the workman refused to receive official communication dated 12.08.2014 The employer urged that above acts amount to the following misconduct by the workman:

(i) Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of his superior in the discharge of his duties.

(ii) Habitual breach of any law applicable to the company or standing orders.

(iii) Slowing down work either singly or in combination with others or another or inciting others to slow down work.

(iv) Neglect of duty including, carelessness, laziness, inefficiency causing the quality of goods handled or processed by the employee/workman to be below the quality or quantity expected by the Company.

7. After the enquiries, the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the following charges are not proved:

(i) Workman caused loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-;

(ii) In the past, workman involved in similar acts on the dates mentioned in the charge memo dated 12.07.2014;

(iii) Abusing MW1 and MW3 (iv) Refusal to accept letter issued for evaluating progress on IDP training process and schedule.

8. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The workman and the parties were permitted to lead evidence relating to the plea of victimization. Both parties led the evidence. The Labour Court concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority relating to the misconduct. The Labour Court held that the following charges are proved:

(a) Refusal to participate in annual appraisal;

(b) Leaving the orientation program amidst;

(c) Illegally gathering in front of Supervisor’s and Managing Director’s