LAWS(GJH)-1993-4-61

ATIKA RUBBER MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. NILKANTHBHAI SHAH

Decided On April 19, 1993
Atika Rubber Mills Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Nilkanthbhai Shah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Scope of exercise of power under - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 11 A - Nature and scope - Labour Court can interfere with the order of punishment if it finds that the same is not just and reasonable, and is harsh - Held on facts that it cannot be said that Labour Court has committed any error much less error apparent on the face of the record, so as to call for interference in exercise of powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner - Company has submitted that the labour court should not have interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the management in domestic inquiry. In his submission the punishment imposed by the petitioner-Company was just and proper. The submission cannot be accepted. In view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the labour court is empowered to interfere with the order of punishment whenever it finds that the order of punishment is not just and reasonable and is harsh. In the instant case the finding of the labour court that the punishment imposed upon the workmen was harsh, excessive and unreasonable is eminently just and proper. It may be noted that in the long span of service of eleven years put in by the workmen Nilkanth Shah and Ramkripal Kevar and nine years service in case of workman Sukumar Shah, this was the first default. This default also cannot be said to be so grave as to warrant the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. The labour court has rightly observed that it may be on account of the bona fide mistaken belief of the workmen concerned that they might not have carried out the order of their superior. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the labour court has committed any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, so as to call for interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.