ITC BHADRACHALAM PAPER BOARDS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the first respondent-Labour Court, could invoke its jurisdiction and power under Sec. ll-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) and interfere with the punishment imposed by the petitioner without taking into consideration all the relevant facts and factors.

(2.) It is necessary to set out the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition : The 2nd respondent was working as an electrician in the organisation of the petitioner-Bhadrachalam Paperboards Limited. He was removed from service with effect from 1-12-1988 on the ground of misconduct, namely for assaulting and abusing the security manager of the petitioner-organisation, using abscene and filthy language. After due enquiry, the charges framed against him were held proved and it was held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct alleged against him and was ultimately removed for service. It was found that on 7-3-88 around midnight, the 2nd respondent entered the housing colony of the petitioner and was summoned to the Office of the security manager, whereupon the 2nd respondent abused the security manager in filthy language and assaulted him. A criminal case was registered against the 2nd respondent which ended in convection under Sec. 294 (b) and 323 IPC On appeal, the conviction under Sec. 323 IPC was confirmed and he was released under Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act on 30-1-89. The 2nd respondent moved the Labour Court under Sec. 2 -A (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act in ID No. 139 /89. The Labour Court agreed with the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry, and held that tne 2nd respondent used abusive language and assailing the security manager, and that the petition was correct in holding that the 2nd respondent is guilty- of misconduct and confirmed the findings. On the question of punishment, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of removal and directed hi s reinstatement into service with continuity of service, without back wages

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy contended that, the 2nd respondent abused the security manager in an extremely foul and filthy language which cannot be tolerated by any person and also assaulted him. and in such circumstances, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the punishment, having found the 2nd respondent guilty of the charges. He further contended that the Labour Court did not consider all the relevant facts and factors by omitting to consider the fact that the 2nd respondent assaulted the security manager and hence, the exercise of power under Sec.11-A of the Act, was not justified.