SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. DILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 26/03/2018 maintaining the judgment of the Labour Court which set aside the order of dismissal dated 12/04/2012 as issued to the respondent and directed his reinstatement with continuity in service and 50% back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a Motor Winder with the petitioner Factory. He was in service since 13/11/1998 . On 01/12/1999 when he was working as Assistant Motor Winder he was asked to attend the break down of a machine. While doing so he had given supply of two phase electric current instead of single phase electric current. This resulted in an internal short circuit and the said machine was burnt. The respondent was thereafter issued a notice and after considering his reply, departmental enquiry was held. At the conclusion thereof punishment of dismissal from service came to be imposed. By filing a complaint the respondent challenged the same. While considering the issue with regard to fairness of enquiry and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, it was held that the enquiry was fair and proper. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were held to be legal and proper. The Labour Court thereafter came to the conclusion that though the misconduct was proved the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate. Hence by its judgment dated 25/05/2017 the order of dismissal was set aside and by depriving the complainant of 50% back-wages from the date of dismissal, he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. The Industrial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved the employer has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri S. G. Zinjarde, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court erred in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer. The misconduct of the respondent having been duly proved and it being of a grave nature, there was no reason to interfere with such punishment. Referring to the order of dismissal dated 12/04/2012 it was submitted that after considering the past service of the complainant the aforesaid punishment came to be imposed. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :