AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.—On January 5, 1985, the Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation issued a memo of charges to the respondent Ibrahimkutty. It was alleged that while working as "attender" he had failed to remit Rs. 8,400/- received "on account of the sales for the period from 12/82 to 5/83....". On July 9, 1985, a modified memo of charges was issued. The basic allegation remained unchanged. Vide order dated September 18, 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. He raised an Industrial Dispute. Having failed before the Labour Court, he approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found that the punishment awarded to the workman was totally disproportionate to the charges proved against him. Thus, the order of dismissal and the award given by the Labour Court, were set aside. The employer was given the option to impose "any of the penalties provided under Clause (a) to (d) of Regulation 61 of Staff Regulations...". It was further ordered that the employer shall give "backwages at the rate of 40%" to the workman for the period he was out of service pursuant to the order of dismissal till the due date of retirement.
The employer and the workman challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge. On behalf of the employer, it has been contended that the charge of causing financial loss to the employer having been proved, the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman has contended that the learned Single Judge had wrongly restricted the backwages to 40%.
A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that the workman Ibrahimkutty was merely employed as a store attendant. His work was being supervised by persons senior to him viz. Sri. E. Erani, A.M. Basheer and Vikraman Pillai. It has been further found that the workman had only passed the 8th class examination. Thus, his ability to maintain accounts etc., was limited. Still further, it has been noticed that the Corporation (present appellant) had charge sheeted three superior officers viz. Sri. E. Erani, A.M. Basheer and Vikraman Pillai. The two officers were awarded the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Sri. Vikraman Pillai was ordered to be dismissed. It is on consideration of all these facts that the learned Single Judge has recorded a positive finding that the workman did not deserve the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. The "extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges established having regard to the educational qualification and the post held by him". It has also been noticed that the Manager in charge and an Accountant were exercising supervisory functions. If they had performed their duties efficient, "there would not have been any occasion for the alleged misconduct" against the workman. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are not in conformity with the material on record.
Mr. Manhu, learned counsel for the employer, contends that the High Court does not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court or the employer. He has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in New Shorrock Mills Vs. Maheshbhai T. Rao, , Director General Indian Council of Medical Research and Others Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Another, , and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Narain Singh, . There is no quarrel with the proposition propounded by the learned counsel. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly settled the issue. However, in the present case, it is clear that maintenance of accounts etc. was not the job of the workman. He was merely a store attendant. He was not in charge of the stocks or sales. In any case, even while he was asked to perform the duties of store keeper on account of the absence of the original incumbent, his work was being supervised by senior persons. It has not been shown that the workman was paid any higher wages even for the period he was allowed to perform the duties of the higher post. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does nt go contrary to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the above noted cases. In fact, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Thus, the order of dismissal from service was set aside. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in New Shorrock Mills (supra).
No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in Writ Appeal No. 1237 of 1997.
This brings us to the appeal filed by the workman. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the workman contends that the order of dismissal having been set aside, the learned Single Judge should have awarded full backwages to the workman.
We are unable to accept the contention. The workmen has not been absolved of the misconduct. The punishment has been found to be disproportionate. The employer was given the option to impose lesser punishment. In view of this the payment of backwages at 40% does not require any interference. We are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar circumstances of the case was just and fair. Thus, it calls for no interference.
No other point has been raised.
We find no merit in either of the appeals. In the circumstances, both appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.