GWALIOR POLLERIES Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the direction of reinstatement of respondent No. 1.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Bhagwan Das was serving as Helper. Respondent No. 1 was served with a charge-sheet dated 29/10/1996 and after enquiry services of respondent No. 1 were terminated vide order dated 11/06/1987. Dispute under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MPIR Act') was filed before the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 has challenged that the order of termination is void and he prayed that he should be paid entire back wages and he should be treated in service. Labour Court, in its final order dated 15/06/1992, held that the departmental enquiry against the workman is valid but the nature of allegation is such on which punishment of dismissal from service is excessive. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 was that he had abused and threatened his superior officer. The Labour Court held that respondent No. 1 had not attacked upon the officer. The language used by respondent No. 1 is not improper considering the social status of respondent No. 1 and modification of punishment to warning and directed reinstatement without back wages. In an appeal, Appellate Court has affirmed the order passed by Labour Court.

(3.) Counsel for petitioners submitted that once departmental enquiry is found to be valid and misconduct is established then Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with quantum of punishment. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court is not vested with the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. K.N. Ramamurthy, AIR 1997 SC 3571 : 1997 (7) SCC 101 : 1998-I-LLJ- 89. In this case, the Apex Court while considering the scope of judicial review of departmental enquiry held that the Court can interfere with the departmental enquiry only if inference of misconduct cannot be drawn from the charges and the supporting particulars, or if the charges are contrary to Taw. While referring to the judgment in th case of Union of India v. A.N. Saxena, AIR 1992 SC 1233 : 1992 (3) SCC 124 : 1993-11- LLJ-747; and Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, AIR 1993 SC 1478 : 1993 (2) SCC 56 : 1993-I-LLJ-777, the Apex Court held that the finding of disciplinary authority is not open to challenge on the facts of the case. In the case of Union of India v. Upendra Singh, 1994 (3) SCC 357 : 1994-I-LLJ-808, it is held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges and the Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The function of the Court/Tribunal is one of Judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. The Tribunal or the Court can interfere only if on the charges (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to law.