AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment), Act, 1987 was instituted against the management by the workman with a prayer to set 139 -April, 2017 aside the dismissal order dated 22.2.2010 and further sought for direction to the petitioner Management to reinstate him into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
The facts leading to the case are that the claimant was initially appointed as Sweeper in the respondent Management and he was working to the satisfaction of the Management till the order of dismissal on 22.2.2010. The delinquent abused the superior with filthy language and accordingly, domestic enquiry was initiated and he was dismissed from service. The domestic enquiry was completed after framing charge and evidence was recorded and documents were also marked. The Labour Court held, the domestic enquiry as fair and proper and however punishment order was modified setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement of the workman without back wages. Hence the management has preferred the present writ petition.
The grounds urged are that the Labour Court has misconceived the total facts of the case as the case of the petitioner was that the respondent had abused his superior and remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of three months. This aspect has not been gone into. If such type of employees are continued, it is difficult for the Management to control the establishment, which is a small one. The charge alleged was serious one, which the Labour Court ought to have appreciated based on oral and documentary evidence on record. However, the Labour Court set aside the order of punishment and hence the present writ petition by the Management.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment, in Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Mohammed, reported in LAWS (KAR)-1978-4-3 to advance the contention that Presenting Officer may be a complainant as also witness. When the Labour Court observes that enquiry is fair and proper, it ought not to have set aside the order of punishment.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted to dismiss the petition. The presenting officer becoming a complainant as well as a witness it is unheard of this. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision in Surendra Pratap Narayan Singh v. Alok Banerjee, Anvari Qaraishi, Bijoy K Mohanty, reported in (2003) 3 CLR 719: 2003 (9) LAWS (CAL) 50 = 2004 (1) LLJ 498. Further it is submitted that finding given by the Labour Court about enquiry being fair and proper is an illegality and non application of mind in view of the above judgment.
Abusing superior and remaining unauthorized absent ate serious matters. The Labour Court has applied its mind and come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and thereby modified, the award directing reinstatement without back-wages. Dismissal from service is a capital punishment and it has to be in rarest of rare cases and only in an inevitable situations. The Labour Court has given a thorough thought on all the issues and come to correct conclusions. When such is the case, this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire thing and come to a different conclusion. Such grounds are not made out in the present case.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly rejected. The petitioner is directed to comply the award of the Labour Court within four weeks from today.