HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under challenge is only as regards the modification of punishment that was made by the Labour Court. The workman had been served with an order of termination of service for absence from duty from 14.09.1984 to 20.12.1984 unauthorizedly. The Labour Court found the punishment to be excessive and by applying the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act modified the punishment to one of withdrawal of three increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) The award was passed by the Labour Court on 29.02.1996 and the challenge was made in the writ petition by filing the case on 29.11.2000. The contention of the learned counsel was that the punishment which was substituted by the Labour Court itself was grossly excessive. He would point out that the absence from duty from 14.09.1984 to 20.12.1984 when the order of termination was issued was on account of the fact that he was not permitted to join the duty and it was not merely a case of unauthorized absence. Before the Labour Court, evidence was tendered to the effect that he joined duty after leave from 11.07.1984 to 31.08.1984 on 01.09.1984. He continued in duty upto 13.09.1984 after which he remained absent. The workman sought to file documents in Court showing that he had sent letters offering to resume duty when the workman had prevented from joining. The Labour Court considered the copies of the letter to have been procured for the purpose of the case and did not believe the genuineness of the documents. It found, therefore, the misconduct attributed to him to had been established.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the workman would contend again that the change of address had been informed to the management and all the communications which had been sent were directed only from his changed address and the finding of the Labour Court that the documents were not true, was not justified. The finding of the Labour Court on the genuineness of the documents had been made on the basis of the fact that the workman filed the same after substantially a long period and the demand notice itself had been issued fairly after a long period and found also that the documents could not be true. I do not feel inclined to interfere with a question of fact and the inference made by the Labour Court after setting out its reasons. If the proof of misconduct was thus established, the Labour Court had given a finding that the punishment of dismissal was excessive and modified in the manner referred to above. The further interference as regards the punishment and provide for a still lesser punishment seems to be out of place before this Court. The jurisdiction and the breadth of discretion under Article 226 is not unbridled. It conforms to well established legal norms and parameters. The interference in the matter of punishment shall be only in cases where the punishment is either capricious or grossly disproportionate. I do not think it shall be proper to interfere with the punishment already imposed.