KRISHNA GOPAL VAITY Vs. COLLINS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was a workman working in the partnership firm of the 1st respondent as a highly skilled workman came to be dismissed by the respondent on January 2, 1975. It must be stated that the 1st respondent-employer after holding a domestic enquiry found the petitioner guilty of certain charges relating to misconduct and on the basis of this basis of this misconduct the employer dismissed the petitioner from its services from January 2, 1975. The petitioner raised a dispute, which came to referred to the Labour Court at Bombay, being Reference (ID)No. 842 of 1975. The Labour Court vide its Award dated April 29, 1989 at Exhibit 'a' rejected the reference and confirmed the order of dismissal. It is this Award of the Labour Court, bombay, Which is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THOUGH the employer - 1st respondent is served, it has chosen to remain absent. Dr. R. S. Kulkarni, appearing in Support of this petition, took us though the judgment and order of the labour Court and urged that the Labour Court has totally overlooked the statutory provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the said Act') Counsel urged that the Labour Court applied old law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1958-I-LLJ-260) and there by committed serious illegality while not following amended provisions contained in section 11-A of the said act. The Labour Court has observed as under :

(3.) IN substance, the learned Labour Judge felt that unless the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are shown to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, he has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer, Even as regards quantum of punishment, the learned Labour Judge followed the old law. Dr. Kulkarni drew our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. The management and others (1973-I-LLJ-278) and urged that the view taken by the learned labour judge is wholly illegal and in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in this judgment, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. We find considerable substance in this submission in as much as the learned Labour Judge has totally ignored the amended provisions of section 11-A of the Said Act. We may only reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyers and Rubber Co. of India (Supra) which are as follows (p. 295) : we will first consider cases where an employer has held a proper and valid domestic enquiry before passing the order of punishment. Previously, the Tribunal had no power to interfere with its finding of misconduct recorded in the domestic enquiry unless one a or other infirmities pointed out by this court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) existed. The Conduct of disciplinary proceeding and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function with which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an interfere of victimisation or unfair labour practice. This position, in our view, has now been changed by Section 11-A. The words