RAJAGOPAL B Vs. JOLLY XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 5522 and 21226 of 2004. The management and the workman challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, in I.D. No. 42/01, by filing the above Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge, by the aforementioned common judgment, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the management and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the workman. Hence, these two Writ Appeals by the workman, challenging the said common judgment.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: Unless otherwise specifically mentioned, the parties and exhibits are mentioned as referred to in W.P.(C) 5522/04, from which W.A.215/09 arises. The Appellant was a workman of a coffee estate in Nelliampathy, owned by a partnership firm, viz., Walliawarum Plantations. The first Respondent herein is its Managing Partner. It appears, the Appellant was apprehending disciplinary action against him. In that context, it is alleged that he threatened the father of the Managing Partner, of dire consequences to his son, if any action is taken against him. It is also alleged that he, along with his brother threatened one of the partners of the firm, by blocking his car and entering into it. For the abovementioned alleged misconducts, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant, by issuing a charge memo dated 4-9-1997. A translation of the said charge memo reads as follows:

(3.) The Tribunal, as a preliminary issue, found that the enquiry was validly held and also came to the conclusion that the aforementioned charges were proved, based on the evidence on record. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether the punishment imposed was proper, invoking its power under Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman was too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against him. Based on that finding, the Tribunal further ordered that the management should reinstate the workman, without back wages. The Tribunal was of the view that the denial of the entire back wages for the period he was kept out of service, will serve as adequate punishment. Ext.P-1 is the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, on 31-12-2003. The management challenged the award, by filing W.P.(C) No. 5522/2004. The workman, feeling aggrieved by the denial of back wages, filed W.P.(C) No. 21226/2004. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the management and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the workman, by the common judgment dated 28-11-2008. As mentioned earlier, the aggrieved worker has, therefore, preferred these two Writ Appeals.