LAXMI STARCH LTD Vs. P C ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal reads: Dismissal of Sri P. C. Alexander, Assistant Supervisor. " The said Alexander is the 1st respondent herein. The Industrial Tribunal as per Ext. PI award held that the action of the management in dismissing the 1st respondent was utterly unjustified and patently illegal. So holding the Industrial Tribunal considered the question as regards the reliefs to be granted to the said workman and concluded that to redress his grievance as well as to resuscitate the discipline in the establishment it was necessary to order his reinstatement with continuity of service However, the Industrial Tribunal directed that the management need pay him only half the wages due to him for the loss of his service daring the material period. This award is impugned before me on four grounds: (1) the Industrial Tribunal failed to raise a preliminary issue as regards the legality and validity of the findings entered by the Domestic Tribunal as per Ext. P6 report; (2) that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to take fresh evidence by permitting the workman to cite and examine W. W. 2; (3) the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the domestic enquiry; (4) and that the relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal is excessive in so far as that Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the workman.

(2.) EXHIBIT P6 domestic enquiry concerned the 1st respondent and one J. Henry The charge against them appears to have been that on 1411-1972 when they were working in the 3rd shift along with one Shri K. J. Samuel, Supervisor, the 1st respondent caused a car that was called to remove one Georgekutty who had fallen ill to deviate to the side of the electrician's room near the motor workshop, that both of them together placed in the luggage boot of the car one M. S. plate which was kept ready there and closing the boot attempted to take it outside the factory premises illegally and unlawfully. The Domestic Tribunal adverted to Ext. M6 produced before him and noticed that Shri Samuel had taken upon himself the responsibility by giving a statement to the effect that the plate was taken and kept in the car for his purpose. The Domestic Tribunal, therefore, took the view that it was evident that Shri Samuel had some knowledge regarding the offence and that the circumstances adverted to by that Tribunal would go to show that Shri Samuel had an important role in the commission of the offence and that such employees are a danger to the company. Though it appears a charge sheet, Ext. R3, produced on behalf of the 1st respondent herein was issued to Shri Samuel, it is common case that the same was not pursued. While a lesser punishment was imposed on Shri Henry, the petitioner was dismissed from service This led to an industrial dispute which led to the reference as aforesaid by the Government.

(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein, came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the 1st respondent was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him, especially in the light of the 1esser punishment awarded to Shri Henry and the exoneration of Shri Samuel. It is on that basis and in that background that the 2nd respondent-Tribunal directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service but with the benefit of only half the wages due to him for the loss of his service during the relevant period.