MANAGEMENT OF INTEGRATED ELECTRIC COMPANY PVT. LTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. SRI R. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O RANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been filed assailing the award of the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in ID 17/1996 - one by the management aggrieved by the award of reinstatement and payment of back wages and another by the workmen seeking for extension of all consequential benefits including full back wages and also to quash the finding of the inquiry proceedings as also the finding that the inquiry conducted is fair and proper.

(2.) THE Company is engaged in the manufacture of electrical rotating machines. Management has engaged about ISO employees. Out of them, some of them have joined the CITU Union and the remaining persons are not members of any Union. The workman along with others intended to form an Union questioning the activities of the management in exploiting the workmen, non -payment of clearness allowance and uniform etc. When the management was requested to stop those activities and to treat die workmen properly, management has taken severe stops to keep the petitioner/workman and some other persons under suspension. Thereafter, inquiry was held against the workman and he was dismissed from service against which dispute was raised by the workman under Section 10 -4A of the Industrial Disputes Act Labour Court, after inquiry; found that the order of dismissal is too disproportionate and directed the management to reinstate the workman with 20% back wages and continuity of service. However, it has ordered to withhold three increments with cumulative effect Aggrieved, management has filed WP 13038/2005. Subsequently, during pendency of the matter, workman also filed a petition - WP 22612/2009 producing several documents pointing out to the conduct of the management as to how he has been ill -treated and to curb the Union activities and their legitimate demand and, questioning the highhandedness of the management, has sought for extension of full back wages and consequential benefits.

(3.) COUNSEL representing the management submitted that the Labour Court ought not have interfered with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and, also interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority only on the basis of morality is not permissible. Only in the event if it is found the order passed is shocking to the conscience of the court, then only it could be interfered. Three charges were levelled and are proved and there is no reason for the Labour Court to substitute its order while modifying me order of punishment. Accordingly, in support of his argument, learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, JT (2007) 3 SC 1 As regards back wages it is submitted only from the date of the order of the Tribunal/Labour Court back wages could be ordered and not from the date of dismissal Pointing out to the various discrepancies in the award of the Labour Court learned Counsel sought for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court.