THE MANAGEMENT OF CINNATOLLIA T.E., NORTH LAKHIMPUR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT DIBRUGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an important point regarding the nature, scope and ambit of the power of the Labour Court under section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded by the management.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 was working as a Mechanic in the tea estate of the petitioner No. 1, hereinafter the management. He was charge sheeted by the management for commission of an act of dishonesty in respect of Company's money by claiming reimbursement of medical expenses on the strength of cash memos showing purchase of medicines on different dates during the relevant period which in fact did not relate to that period. The dates on cash memos were overwritten and altered and a false claim was made for reimbursement. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the management wherein charges levelled against the workman were proved and he was found guilty of the misconduct. The management, therefore, awarded him punishment of dismissal from service.

(3.) As the Union raised an industrial dispute, reference was made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected the domestic enquiry proceedings and directed the parties to adduce evidence on merits before it. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court arrived at a finding that the workman with a view to realise some amount incurred for treatment of his wife for the period not sanctioned by the management made alteration of cash memos by overwriting and there was no explanation from the workman in that regard. The learned Court observed that the conduct of the workman, therefore, could not in any way be overlooked. On the basis of the aforesaid finding and observation, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that "the workman was greedy and wanted somehow to realise the money he spent outside the period sanctioned for treatment of his wife". It, therefore, held that "the workman was no doubt 'technically guilty' in this regard"