LUPIN LTD Vs. MELSINGH BHAGVANSINH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner-Company has assailed the Award dtd. 5/9/2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch below Exh.76 in Reference (LCB) No. 226 of 2005 (published on 10/10/2018); wherein and whereby, the Labour Court has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent-workman and has directed reinstatement with 100% back wages.

(2.) The petitioner-Company is engaged in production of various pharmaceutical products, medicines and formulations and having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the memo of the present petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.D.J.Bhatt appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has failed to appreciate that vide order dtd. 19/8/2017, it was held that the inquiry conducted by the petitioner-Company was legal and valid and it is settled principle of law that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer, when the inquiry is held to be valid and legal. He has submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment imposed on the respondent- workman is apparently excessive is erroneous since a serious charge of theft has been proved against the respondent-workman. It is submitted that in light of the proved charge of theft of powder, the petitioner-Company was bound to lose confidence in the respondent-workman and deserved to be dismissed from the service. It is submitted that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the settled position of law that in the event of serious misconducts like theft, the quantum of amount is not important but what is important, is the loss of confidence by an employer in the employee. It is submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not appreciating the settled principle of law that in the event of serious misconduct by the employee, if it is proved, the power should not be exercised upon the employee and while exercising powers under Sec. 11A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court cannot interfere with the findings of the fact arrived at during the course of inquiry unless the findings are perverse.