M/S. HINDLEVER CHEMICALS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in this batch of three writ petitions is the whether the powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be exercised at the time when it chose to grant or refuse approval under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this batch of three writ petitions, the management assails the power exercised by the Labour Court to reduce the punishment of removal from service to one of reinstatement and denial of backwages only on the ground that the punishment was excessive for the misconduct attributed to the workman. To advert to more facts that are necessary to come to grip of the problem :

(2.) The three private respondents in the respective writ petitions were admittedly workmen in the petitioner-factory. All the three workmen had been reported as persistently absent without sanction of leave and the standing orders admittedly characterised such unauthorized absence as "misconduct". Charge-sheets had been issued against all the three workmen and the enquiry yielded to findings of guilt against all the three workmen. At the time when a decision was taken on 21.04.1993, there were other proceedings pending before the Labour Court on some industrial disputes raised at the instance of the Workers' Union of which the private respondents were also members and therefore, approval had been sought of the action taken for termination of services. The Labour Court declined the approval sought and set aside the termination orders on 28.11.1994 on the ground that the punishment of removal from service was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sh. Sarin only contended that at the stage when an application is moved under Sec. 33(2)(B), the Labour Court shall only examine whether the procedure prescribed has been followed before the action is taken and whether the action is the result of any victimisation practised on account of pendency of a reference before it. The Labour Court did not have any power to invoke Sec. 11-A since the said Sec. contemplates a situation where an industrial dispute relating to discharge/dismissal of a workman "has been referred" to a Labour Court. The dismissal of the workman had not been referred to the Labour Court but the decision had been taken by the management following a domestic enquiry and therefore, Sec. 11-A could not be attracted.