Management of Tan India Ltd., Wattle Division vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner-management has filed the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated

January 27, 1995. The second respondent herein was appointed as an electrician on probation on August 1, 1981. On May 8, 1991, when the

petitioner was on duty, there was electricity failure at 4.45 P.M. The second respondent was asked to attend to the same but he refused.

Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and the second respondent''s service was terminated on July 11, 1991. The second respondent

raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent, Labour Court, Coimbatore. The learned Judge presiding over the Labour Court has found

that the enquiry was held in a proper manner and the second respondent himself did not challenge the procedure adopted by the petitioner in the

enquiry. The Labour Court has further found that there was some insubordination on the part of the second respondent and consequently he

cannot be directed to be reinstated. But having said so, the Labour Court has directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 3,40,000. Aggrieved

by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Labour Court has found that the procedure adopted in the

disciplinary proceeding by the petitioner is proper and the second respondent was only a probationer, the quantum of the compensation awarded

is too high. Further, the second respondent was, in the service of the petitioner only for one and half years.

Though the second respondent was served, he has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel.

When the Labour Court, has found that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings by the petitioner herein and

the finding of the enquiry officer that there is an element of insubordination on the part of the second respondent, the Labour . Court ought to have

dismissed the petition filed by the second respondent. When it is categorically found that there is an insubordination by the employee the same

cannot be tolerated. If the insubordination of one employee is to be tolerated, then definitely it will pave way for the others to follow and ultimately

the management will be the sufferer.

Hence, the insubordination of the employees has to be viewed seriously and strict discipline has to be enforced.

When that be the case, the Labour Court having found that the procedure adopted by the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings having not

been challenged by the second respondent and there was insubordination at this point, there is no justification for the Labour Court in awarding the

compensation. Hence, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained so far as the compensation is concerned. Accordingly, the same is set

aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.