O R D E R

The present writ petition has been preferred against the award of Labour Court directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent without back wages and other attendant benefits and imposed punishment of withholding the increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect.

2. According to the management, the Labour Court has given a categorical finding by its order dated 14.09.2010 that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted in a very fair and proper manner. Later, while discussing the charges as well as the punishment, it was held that the charge with regard to negligence as well as production of false certificate has been proved. However, it was held that dishonesty has not been proved and it cannot be held the employee has stolen the watch from the management. On the above finding, the Labour Court has considered the proportionality of the punishment. The Labour Court has considered the age, length of service and the family circumstances of the 2nd respondent imposed the above said punishment of reinstatment of continuity of service, but without back wages and other attendant benefits and also imposed punishment of withholding of increment without cumulative effect.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Labour Court has failed to discuss the judgments placed before it on the issue of proportionality of the punishment as well as the loss of confidence by the management for the purpose of deciding reinstatement. According to him, as per the judgment reported in 1980 (1) MLJ 425 [Gordon Woodroffe Employees Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], it was categorically held that length of service is not a license to commit misconduct. Insofar as the negligence is concerned, it is proved beyond doubt and for the proved misconduct, imposing major punishment is not disproportionate. At any cost, the reinstatement cannot be ordered.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be considered as misconduct since there is substantial evidence to show that the loss of watch cannot be directly attributed to the worker. The drawer from where the watch was found missing has 2 keys and one of the key was held by the management. When there are two views possible, the misconduct cannot be attributed to the 2nd respondent and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly held that she has not stolen the watch. In respect of the second charge, the categorical finding is that the management has failed to prove that the post which was held by the 2nd respondent requires degree qualification. Since she has completed 15 years of service in the course, it cannot be construed that she has given false information for the purpose of joining the service. Therefore, the finding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience is not without reason, but it is based on acceptable and valid reasons.

5. Heard the submissions and perused the materials.

6. At the outset, as admitted by the parties, the finding of the Labour Court on the conduct of domestic enquiry being fair and proper, there are no questions. Once it is found that the domestic enquiry was held fair and proper, it only remains to find as to whether the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate.

7. In so far as the charges with regard to charges of negligence and theft is concerned, the Labour Court based on the material evidence has held that negligence is categorically proved, but the charge of theft has not been proved. The perusal of oral evidence goes to show that there were two key available to the drawer in which the Rolex watch was kept. The employee took stand that there was a possibility for anyone who is in management or having access to workplace can access the drawer. As rightly found by the Labour Court , in the absence of direct evidence attributable to the employee, and when there are no two views possible, the view which is beneficial to the employee shall be adopted.