AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prabha Sridevan, J.—The management and the employee are aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No.
564 of 1991 and hence the two writ petitions.
Charges were framed against the employee, who was working as a supervisor. The allegations made are that the employee was in the habit of
using abusive language with regard to the management and in spite of warnings, the employee spoke disrespectfully to the Chairman. In the
domestic enquiry, the charges were held to be proved. On consideration of the findings of the enquiry officer, orders were passed, discharging the
services of the employee, against that a dispute was raised. The Labour Court held on facts that the charges had been proved and therefore upheld
the punishment of discharge. However, it also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the management has filed W.P.
No. 12453 of 1996 and aggrieved by the Labour Court upholding the order of discharge, the employee has filed W.P. No. 5062 of 1996.
The Labour Court has considered in details, the evidence which substantiate the charges levelled against the employee with regard to abusive
language and conduct undermining the discipline amongst the employees. The Labour Court also found that there was no illegality in the disciplinary
proceedings and the conclusion was not perverse but only reasonable.
In these circumstances, when on an independent appreciation of the findings of the enquiry officer, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that
the order of discharge was justified and when there is nothing to show that the punishment awarded is illegal or excessive, this Court cannot
interfere with this portion of the award and therefore, the writ petition filed by the employee in W.P. No. 5062 of 1996 is dismissed. No costs.
As regards the other writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 12453 of 1996, there is a clear finding that the employee has been indulging in abusing the
management and disturbing the peace and discipline amongst the employees and in spite of that the Labour Court has awarded Rs. 20,000 as
compensation only because the employee has been working from 1983. It has been repeatedly held that in cases where the charges have been
proved and where the conduct of the workman deserves the punishment that is imposed, there is no room for compassion or no question of
awarding largesse. We are quite conscious of this position and therefore, this portion of the award cannot be sustained and must necessarily be
quashed. Writ Petition No. 12453 of 1996 is allowed. No costs.