General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh vs Inder Bahadur

S.S. Nijjar, J.—The State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the management"), by way of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the award dated 7.1.1999 (An-nexure P-2), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred lo as "the Labour Court").

Respondent No. 1, Inder Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as "the workman"), was duly selected and appointed in the year 1963. Me was charge-sheeted on 17.12.1990. The enquiry was completed in the year 1993. The services of the workman were terminated by order dated 4.2.1994. At the time when the services of the workman were terminated he was working as Fitter. The allegation against the workman was that he had checked bus No. 724 during the night of 27.11.1990 and had issued the fitness job card. It was alleged that he had checked the bus negligently. Had the bus been sent on the route, it would have broken down. It was further alleged that on account of the negligence on the part of the workman, the work of the workshop was disrupted.

The workman served a demand notice on the basis of which reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after completion of the pleadings, framed the following issues :-

Whether the services of workman were terminated illegally by the respondent, if so, to what relief he is entitled to ? OPW

Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

The Labour Court found that the enquiry had been properly conducted. It was also found that the bus was not fit to be plied on the road on account of the defects, though a fitness certificate had been issued. It has further been held that had the workman been vigilant, he would not have issued the fitness certificate. So, the negligence was there on his part. After giving the aforesaid finding, the Labour Court has held that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Thus, taking into account the long service and that there was no instance of negligence earlier on the part of the workman, it was held by the Labour Court that punishment of termination awarded to the workman is too harsh. The Labour Court has noticed that earlier to this, the workman had rendered 30 years of unblemished service. Thus, exercising the powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Labour Court has reduced the punishment to withholding of two increments with punishment to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The workman has been reinstated into service with 60% back wages.

Mr. Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the Labour Court having held the misconduct to be proved, could not have interfered with the punishment which has been imposed by the management. He has submitted that it is the prerogative of the management to decide what punishment is to be awarded to a workman after the misconduct is duly proved. He has further submitted that the misconduct proved against the workman was serious as the defective bus, if put on the road, could have led to an accident.

Having considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 1 find no justification for interfering in the award passed by the Labour Court. Not only, does the Labour Court has power to reduce the punishment in the facts and circumstances of a particular case by exercising powers u/s 11-A of the Act, but it is duty bound to consider as to whether the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct when a plea to that effect is made on behalf of the workman. In the present case, the Labour Court has exercised the discretion vested in it u/s 11A of the Act on the basis of the relevant material. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Labour Court has acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.