Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Smt. Santosh Jaiswal, respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioner Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short "the Corporation"). Her services were terminated. She challenged the order of termination and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Respondent No. 2 had alleged that no fair and proper enquiry was held before terminating her services and against the order terminating her services she had preferred an appeal which was not disposed of by the authorities for 8.1/2 years. The order whereby her appeal was not disposed of for such a long period was stated to be unfair labour practice. She prayed for reinstatement and continuity of service with full back wages. The claim of respondent No. 2 had been resisted. It was insisted that fair and proper enquiry had been held.

The learned Labour Court framed the issues and held that respondent No. 2 was not found guilty for misappropriation of funds. The Enquiry Officer had simply found that she did not hand over the charge as per the instructions of the Head Office and had made direct correspondence with the Chief Minister. As a result of audit, a shortage of Rs. 1,574.16 was noticed. It was concluded that the act of the management in not disposing of the workman''s appeal amounted to unfair labour practice. The misconduct was not of such a nature that services of respondent No. 2 should have been terminated. The ends of justice, according to the Labour Court, would meet if minor punishment of censure was imposed. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, answered the reference holding that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. A minor punishment of censure was awarded. The workman- respondent No. 2 was directed to report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award.

The petitioner-corporation by virtue of the writ petition assailed the said award of the Labour Court. It was asserted that full enquiry had been held. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed though there was a delay of 8.1./2 years. According to the petitioner, only the quantum of punishment was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court was not justified in reducing the punishment to one of censure.

Respondent No. 2 contested the petition and in the written statement filed supported the reasoning given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. As per respondent No. 2, she raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The act of the management in not disposing of the appeal amounted to unfair labour practice. It was insisted that there was no misappropriation of funds and for the little acts on behalf of respondent No. 1 the punishment of censure was sufficient.

There is no controversy that the powers of the Labour Court u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act are very wide. It can reappraise the material evidence during the course of enquiry and even in appropriate cases can reduce the punishment. Supreme Court considered this aspect in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Another, . In paragraph 3 of the judgment, it was held as under-

"Wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal under this provisions and in a given case on the facts established the Tribunal can vacate the order of dismissal or discharge and give suitable directions. It is a well settled principle of law that where an order of termination of service is found to be bad and reinstatement is directed, the wronged workman is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless for any particular reasons the whole or a part of it is asked to be withheld. The Tribunal while directing reinstatement and keeping the delinquency in view could withhold payment of a part or the whole of the back wages ..."

In the case of E. Merck (India) Limited v. V.N. Parulekar and Ors. 1991 LAB.I.C. 1555, Bombay High Court also considered the same question and scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was described in the following words:-

".........The Tribunal''s powers u/s 11A of the said Act are thus very wide and are not limited to the grounds on which it could interfere with the order of dismissal or discharge passed by the management under the pre-existing law. In my judgment, the Tribunal was under a duty to reappraise the evidence and satisfy itself as to whether the misconduct alleged against the workman was proved or not......"

It is abundantly clear from what had been recorded above that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to reduce the sentence. The argument of the learned counsel to the contrary, therefore, necessarily is without merit and fails.

As already pointed above, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, keeping in view the nature of the assertions proved thought it appropriate that it is not a case for terminating the services of respondent No. 2, but in the facts of the case minor penalty of censure would meet the ends of justice. It was urged that the said discretion has not been exercised properly.

This court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction ordinarily will not interfere in such discretionary matters. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, specifically noted that what was proved during the course of enquiry was not grave and serious to prompt the termination of services of respondent No. 2. This had been done keeping in view the totality of the facts and the nature of the allegations proved which have already been mentioned above. It pertains to having direct correspondence with the Chief Minister and not handing over the charge as directed. Besides, there was some amount found due when audit was conducted. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion properly and even if this Court finds that it would have come to a conclusion to the contrary, the High Court will not interfere. The discretion exercised is not arbitrary or absurd. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the same.

10 For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.