CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. MAVJI C LAKUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the main question that is involved is what is the scope of the Labour Court or the Tribunal or National Tribunal while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") ? Though this question has time and again come for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court and other High Courts, in this petition the same has been extensively argued by both the sides and I am, therefore, required to deal with that issue and determine the same on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsels and the decisions and provisions of law cited by them in support of their respective submissions.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to the present controversy can be stated as under :-

(3.) Mr. Arun H. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly challenged the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its power vested in it by the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. Mr. Mehta has submitted that perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal clearly shows that it has nowhere discussed in detail why it is interfering with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority of the decision of the Appellate Authority on the question of the quantum of punishment even when very little scope is given to the Tribunal by the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not reached to the conclusion that the penalty of discharge imposed upon the respondent was disproportionately heavy or excessive and without giving such finding, it has substantially interfered with the punishment imposed on the respondent. Mr. Mehta has submitted that the complexion of acts of misconduct alleged against the delinquent would vary from institution to institution. In other words, considering the business dealt with or the service rendered by a particular institution the alleged act of misconduct may not entail serious consequence so far the said institution is concerned. However, the same act of misconduct may cause serious harm to the reputation, business, etc. of different institution. He, therefore, submitted that some wild language used by the respondent during the working hours for the valued customers of the bank may not only tarnish the reputation of the bank, but it may also result into loss of business to the bank since the aggrieved client may well choose to close his account in such bank and avail the service of some other bank. In support of its contentions Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court and has drawn my attention to the scope of the Tribunal or the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act and the limits carved out by these decisions within which the Court and the Tribunal are required to exercise this power.