Pummel Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This is an application for reviewing our judgment dated 26.7.2000 vide which we had dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner by which the petitioner had challenged the award of the Labour Court.

So far as the finding given by us is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show that he has been able to make out any case for review. He has further argued that quantum of punishment was not considered in our judgment. Whatever arguments were made, were considered. However, we take into consideration the argument of quantum of punishment today by permitting the teamed counsel to argue on the same.

The charges for which the petitioner''s services were terminated are as under :-

"1) The workman remained absent from duty without any leave or permission from the management. He did not join his duly despite notice;

ii) That the workman misbehaved with the members of the managing committee of the respondent society."

iii) That the workman caused bodily injuries to the president of the society regarding which FIR was lodged;

iv) That the workman caused financial loss to the society. It is, further, submitted that on verification, the management found less stock for which he deposited the amount of less stock".

In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Others, , it has been held therein that when the punishment of removal which was awarded, was not shockingly disproportionate substitution of punishment by stoppage of one wage increment and payment of 50% back wages was not justified. In that case, the charge proved against the workman was that he had on 24.5.1980 at about 8.30 PM alongwith one Shiv Kumar Sharma, Conductor gone to Ramesh Chandra, Assistant Cashier, in the cash room in a drunken state and demanded money from Ramesh Chandra and when the latter refused, the workman abused and threatened to assault him which was treated as an act of misconduct.

Considering the facts of this case and principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act by substituting the punishment by a lighter one.

This Review Application is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.