S K BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Durg dated 23-9-1981 passed in Case No. 127/mpir/87 (Annexure-C) and the order of the Industrial Court dated 29-9-1984 (Annexure-D), whereby the order dated 26-9-1967 passed by the employer, the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-A) imposing punishment of reduction of pay-scale of the petitioner to minimum of the lower grade of Turner Rs. 135-175/- from the grade of Rs. 156-231/- for a period of five years with effect form the date of service on the charges of misconduct levelled in the charge-sheet dated 12-8-1967 was upheld.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that exactly on the same set of facts and the circumstances, the same charges were also levelled against one Narhari Tripathi. A common domestic enquiry was held against both. After conclusion of the common enquiry, the petitioner was inflicted a penalty of reduction to lower grade as ordered in (Annexure-A), while Narhari Tripathi was dismissed from service. The petitioner and Narhari Tripathi challenged the orders of punishment before the Labour Court by their separate applications under Section 31 (3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act' ). The Labour Court dismissed the applications of both the employees. The petitioner and Narhari Tripathi aggrieved of the order of Labour Court filed two separate revisions under Section 66 of the Act, (now stands omitted by M. P. Act 41/1981), before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the said revisions. The petitioner and Narhari Tripathi challenged the orders of the Labour Court and that of Industrial Court, passed in Revisions by a writ petition M. P. No. 722 of 1972. A Division Bench of this Court quashed the orders so challenged and remitted the case to the Labour Court vide order dated 15-2-1979, with a direction to consider the report of the Enquiry Committee along with the evidence collected in the domestic enquiry without taking further evidence and to record its own conclusions on the charges against the petitioner and Narhari Tripathi with a further direction that in case it is found that all or some of the charges are proved against the two employees, the Labour Court would then decide as to what penalty should be awarded and to what reliefs the two employees are entitled.

(3.) AFTER the order of this Court in M. P. No. 722 of 1972, the Labour Court recorded a finding in case of Narhari Tripathi that he disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors and did not perform his duties therefore, committed a misconduct under clause 12 (l) (d) of Standard Standing Orders of the M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, framed under M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. But, the Labour Court interfered in the order of punishment being too harsh and excessive, hence, directed reinstatement forfeiting back wages as a measure of punishment. However, in case of the petitioner the punishment awarded by the employer was maintained by the Labour Court.