SECRETARY, NELLAI MAVATTA PANCHALAI THOZHILALAR SANGHAM TUTICARIN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF TUTICORIM SPINNING MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) second respondent, the first respondent seemed to have taken up a stand that the second respondent is only an informal arbitrator and he may not have the powers of reinstatement even if the case warranted the same. There is a discussion of this aspect by the second respondent in the impugned award. It is true in the penultimate paragraph of the award the second respondent has touched the question of gravamen of the charges framed against the workmen as well as the propriety of ordering reinstatement. But. it is obvious that the second respondent has carried himself with a misconception that his jurisdiction as an informal arbitrator is limited and that it will not be competent for him to order reinstatement. It is not disputed before me that an arbitrator appointed pursuant to a settlement under S. 12 (31 of the Act stands on par with an arbitrator appointed under S. 10-A of the Act. Even on the question as to whether the powers under S. 11-A of the Act could be invoked and exercised by arbitrators appointed under S. 10-A of the Act, the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. V/s. G. S. T. Mazdoor Sabha, 1980 1 LLJ 137 has categorically opined that S. 11-A applies to the arbitrator appointed under S. 10A of the Act and he has the power to examine whether the punishment imposed in a particular case is excessive or not. A fortiori the ratio applies to even an arbitrator, to whom the matter is referred for adjudi- cation pursuant to a settlement arrived at under S. 12 (3) of the Act. The ex- ercise of power under S. 11-A of the Act has to be done by a proper assess- ment of the materials bv the second re- spondent and not with a coloured and an obsessed view that the scope of his juris- diction, because he happens to be an in- formal arbitrator. is limited on this question. I am of the opinion that since the second respondent seems to have ab- dicated the jurisdiction enjoined upon h'm in law on a misconception of his own powers. I have to interfere in writ' proceedings and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter will stand remitted to the second respondent for him to consider the matter afresh, keeping in mind the principle discussed above. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.

(2.) It is found that the second respondent did arrive at a concrete finding that the charges levelled against the workmen are proved. I do not find any warrant to disturb that finding and I make it clear that his finding will remain undisturbed and the matter, when it goes back, will be re-examined by the second respondent only with reference to the appraisal of the matter on the application of S. 11-A of the Act on the question of appropriate punishment and relief to be granted.