BANGALOR MAHANAGAR SARIGE SAMSTHE Vs. SHIVARUDREAIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANGALORE Mahanagara Sarige Samsthe (hereinafter referred to as 'BMSS' for the sake of brevity) has come before this Court for the second time and is questioning the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.121/2006 dated 30.11.2010, whereunder Tribunal has modified the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority from reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of four years and withholding of increments during the above said four years period to that of two annual incremental reduction of basic pay by two annual incremental stages for two years without cumulative effect.

(2.) ARTICLES of Charges were issued to the respondent/workman on 22.12.1992 which reads as under: CHARGES

(3.) REPLY was submitted by the workman and after considering the same, it was held in the summary enquiry conducted that charges were proved and by way of punishment his basic pay was reduced by two incremental stages for a period of four years. Dispute raised by workman in Reference No.22/99 came to be rejected and thereafter dispute through Union was raised in Reference No.121/2006. The Industrial Tribunal by Award dated 17.7.2008 in ID No. 121/2006 modified the order of Disciplinary Authority by reducing two increments for a period of two years instead of four years. Aggrieved by said order, Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 10694 of 2009 before this Court and after considering the contentions raised by respective parties this Court found that aspect of delay in raising the dispute which had been raised by the petitioner/ management had not been considered by the Tribunal and as such it set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remanded the matter to Tribunal for fresh adjudication. It was also noticed by this Court in its order that scope of interference in so far as minor punishment is circumscribed by Section 11 -A by taking into consideration, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers ' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 and held that Labour Court could not have interfered with the minor punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of its powers u/s. 11 -A of the I.D. Act. With this observation, matter was remitted back to the Labour Court. On such remand being made, matter was taken up for consideration and tribunal after considering the evidence available on record both oral and documentary, as also the contentions raised by the respective advocates by its award dated 30.11.2010 Tribunal allowed the dispute in part and modified the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by reducing the punishment. It is this order which is questioned in this petition by the Management.