ANANT PANDEEY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the workman is challenging the order and award of the Labour Court Annexures P/3 and P/4 respectively. By annexure P/3, it has been ordered that the enquiry held against the workmen was proper and by Annexure P/4, the claim for re -instatement has been dismissed and only Rs. 30,000/ - has been awarded.

(2.) THE first point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that while taking decision, the Labour Court has not re -appreciated the evidence which it should have. The counsel has relied on the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management and others, reported in . He has relied on the observations made in para No. 32 of the judgment. It has been held by the Supreme Court that before the insertion of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an inference of victimisation or unfair labour practice. It has been further observed that this position has now been changed by Section 11A of the Act and the Tribunal is also now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer established the misconduct of the employee. He has also relied on the case of Mangat Rai v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation and ait -other, reported in, 1998(1) SCT 771 (P&H) (DB) :, 1995(I) PLR 791. He has relied on para Nos. 27 and 28 of the judgment. It has been held in para No. 27 that the Courts have consistently held that in appropriate cases the Labour Court and the Tribunal can substitute the punishment awarded by the employer with a lesser punishment. It is also observed that the Labour Court or Tribunal can examine the issue relating to fairness of the departmental/domestic enquiry, the merits of the findings recorded during the course of such enquiry as well as the issue relating to punishment. It is observed in para No. 28 of the judgment that if the impugned award was examined in the light of the principles discussed above, there was no hesitation to hold that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 11A of the Act, he had neither discussed the evidence produced during the course of enquiry with a view to determine whether the charge levelled against the workman is proved or not, nor he had considered whether the punishment awarded to him is just or not.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the management had also given its mind and therefore, the enquiry against him stood vitiated. The petitioner has reproduced in his writ petition extract from the letter dated 20.10.1985, which is as under : -