RAMESHBHAI ATMARAM PATEL Vs. FACTORY MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that Special Civil Application No. 942 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner-Workman, and Special Civil Application No. 1424 of 1996 is filed by the Mill-Company. In both these petitions, the order dated 21.10.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 4.12.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad are under challenge, therefore, both these petitions are heard and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The brief facts of both these petitions are as under :-

(3.) In light of the submissions made by both the learned advocates, it is first of all necessary to examine the order passed by the Labour Court in Application No. T-85 of 1991 [Annexed at page 42 of the Spl.C.A No. 1424 of 1996]. Before the Labour Court, the respondent workman was examined vide Exh. 41 wherein he has deposed that because there was some grudge with Mr. H.N Vyas, Branch Manager, he was victimized by the petitioner mill-company. Thereafter, petitioner mill-company has examined one Harivadan N. Vyas vide Exh. 49 and since there was no further evidence from the petitioner's side, vide Exh. 50, their evidence was closed. The Labour Court heard both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and framed three issues viz., (i) whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are in consonance with the inquiry papers; (ii) whether the penalty imposed upon the workman is proportionate to the charges levelled against him; and (iii) whether the workman has been victimized or so ? The Labour Court has discussed each and every issue in length and came to the conclusion that looking to the findings given by the Inquiry Officer and considering the length of service of the workman, and his clean past, the order of punishment of dismissal is harsh, disproportionate and unjustified. The Labour Court has also observed that the workman who had completed more than 25 years' service with all throughout clean record, then how he all of a sudden became a bad workman and why the petitioner mill-Company has not considered the case of respondent-workman for some minor punishment when the charges levelled against the workman are not such serious. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that the dismissal of the workman also adversely impact the family of the workman too and when the workman had reached the age of 51 years, and at this stage, he would not be in a position to get fresh employment elsewhere, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service can be said to be a economic death of the workman. Therefore, the Labour Court had though it fit to interfere with the order of dismissal by exercising powers under Section 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and came to the conclusion that the order of punishment is required to be modified, and therefore, the Labour Court has modified the said order by granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 40% of the backwages. However, the Labour Court had denied 60% of the backwages for the interim period by way of punishment. Thereafter, in appeal, the Industrial Court has considered the findings given by the Labour Court and came to the conclusion that the Labour Court has power under Sections 78 and 79 to modify the punishment and to examine the legality and validity and propriety of the dismissal order. Relying upon the decisions in the matters of Babulal Nayak and Ors. versus Shree Synthetics Limited, reported in 1984 FLR 140; of Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cables (India) Limited, LIC 1982 p-1790, the Industrial Court has considered that if an employee in a heat of moment uses filthy language or abuses his superior, it cannot be considered to be a serious misconduct in background of the long service and clean past record and in that circumstances, employer should not take a serious view and pass a dismissal order. After considering all the aspects, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that there was no error committed by the Labour Court and the denial to grant 60% of the backwages to the workman is considered to be a proper punishment. The Industrial Tribunal, thus came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Labour Court does not requires interference in appeal, and therefore, both the appeals came to be rejected on 4th December, 1995.