MANAGEMENT, HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED Vs. K. MUTHUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order, dtd. 25/1/2019 in A.P. No.44 of 2014 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal having found favour with the Petitioner on the Preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the enquiry conducted by the Petitioner erred in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Petitioner under Sec. 11-A of the I.D. Act, which power was available only under Sec. 10 or 2(A)(2) of the I.D. Act. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that assuming that the Industrial Tribunal interfered with the punishment on the ground that it was unduly harsh, severe or shockingly disproportionate, it ought to have seen that on the facts of the case, the said grounds for interference with the punishment were not available. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the impugned Order of the Industrial Tribunal was erroneous and the same deserve to be set aside.