AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—The petitioner has sought fox quashing the Award passed by the Labour Court in ID. No. 33/2003 dated 21-11-2007.
2, Although the petitioner was appointed as Conductor he became a member of the second petitioner Federation representing the Depot has Union leader. It is alleged that he had used abusive language against the Depot Manager. After serving the articles of charges, he replied to the same, but the ease wee rejected. On the basis of the Enquiry report, he wee dismissed front service during 2003. The workman raised a dispute u/s 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court after enquiry having found that the enquiry held is fair and proper, confirmed the order of dismissal holding that the I party workman used abusive language against the Depot Manager, Security Guards and ether persons. Hence, this petition by the workman.
Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
According to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the workman has not boon cross-examined by the Management. If his statement is accepted, then necessarily the charges are not proved and the statement/evidence of the workman has not been refuted or denied. Accordingly sought to pass an order of reinstatement while setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent resisted the petition and submitted that the punishment imposed is just and proper and does not require any interference.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision reported in AIR 2008 SCW 2775 in the case of The Management of Aurofood pvt. Ltd. v. S. Rajulu contended that the charge of using filthy language and answering superiors insolently in and taking the misconduct as trivial, the Apex Court held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate. Having regard to the antecedents of delinquent ordered that compensation to be paid instead of reinstatement. Accordingly contended that the language used is trivial.
Although the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy for having used the filthy language, the Management behaved rudely. But the fact remains that his evidence has not been considered by the Management during the enquiry by way of cross-examination. Of courser the Labour Court has taken a view that how the evidence of the Management has to be discarded on the ground that whatever the workman has said is not gospel truth.
In the circumstances, in modification of the order of dismissal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement without any back wages however, without continuity of service from the date of dismissal till he is taken on duty. However, the Management shall withhold four increments with cumulative effect. The order shall be implemented within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.