VICTOR F PARMAR Vs. ELECON ENGINEERING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is well established that the labour court should not mechanically use the words "punishment being disproportionate to the charges". The labour court is required to give reasons as to why the punishment is grossly disproportionate. The discretionary power cannot be equated with the power of veto. Once the labour court evaluates the gravity of misconduct and considers the past record of service, it is true that the order of the labour court modifying the order of punishment or moulding the relief under section 11A of the ID Act should not be interfered with by this Court. Such is not the case at hand.

(2.) It is well established that section 11A of the ID Act empowers the adjudicator under the said Act to substitute or mould the punishment meted on the employee by the employer in certain cases and these are the discretionary powers to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of each case. When such powers are being invoked, the adjudicator is required to examine the connected parameters namely nature of charge proved, length of service of the employee and the past record and social as also the family back ground of the workman, compelling circumstances for committing the misconduct etc. Recent decision of the apex Court in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation and others versus Musai Ram and others reported in 1999 (2) CLR 312 is supporting the view.

(3.) Under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ("the ID Act" for short), the industrial tribunal or the labour court is not vested with unguided power to set aside the justified order passed by the Management. The power under section 11A of the ID Act has to be exercised judiciously and the tribunal or the labour Court as the case may be can interfere with the decision of the management under section 11 A of the ID Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of the guilt established or alleged against the delinquent workman. In number of decisions, this court has time and again held that misappropriation, dishonesty and theft, if held to be established or proved, would be the major punishment and normally, dismissal order passed by the competent disciplinary authority should not be interfered with by the labour court or the industrial tribunal under section 11 A of the ID Act.