WP/6544/1999 of Karvy Consultants Limited Vs The Presiding Officer on 26 December 2007

ORDER:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6544 of 1999

This writ petition is filed challenging the awardmade by the Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad inI.D.No.123 of 1997 dated 1[st] December, 1998.

The petitioner is the Management. 2[nd]respondent is the workman. It appears that 2[nd]respondent filed an application before the LabourCourt under Section 2-A (2) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). It was hiscase that he was appointed as Electrician in thepetitioner-institution with effect from 27.7.1984. Theemployees of the petitioner-institution formed into aunion and ever since, the Management began toharass them. Further, they have submitted aCharter of Demands in the month of August, 1996

and the Management called the office bearers ofthe Union on 15.11.1996 and informed that they arenot agreeable for the same, and they woulddisclose their policy in General Body Meeting.Accordingly, on 16.11.1996 at about 12-00 noon, aGeneral Body Meeting of all the employees wascalled for and the Chairman & Managing Directoraddressed the meeting. The employees were not happy with the issues raised by him. They raisedprotests after conclusion of the meeting. Takingadvantage of the situation, the Management startedissuing charge sheets. The charge framed againstthe respondent-workman was as under:

“that on 19.12.1996 you had threatenedMr.G.Hari Kumar and Mr.P.Prasad, OfficeBoys of CMD’s Secretariat by saying why didyou sign as a witness on the suspensionorder given to Mr B.J.Dhanunjaya Kumar, Ido not like it and I will see your end.”

The workman was placed under suspension on21.12.1996. Thereafter, a farce of enquiry wasconducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted reportholding that the workman was guilty of the charge.

Subsequently, the disciplinary authority imposed apenalty of dismissal from service against theworkman. Aggrieved by the same, the workmanfiled an application under Section 2-A (2) of the IDAct. The management filed a detailed counterdenying the allegations made by the workman andstated that the charge was grave in nature and forthe purpose of maintaining discipline in theinstitution, there was no way except to remove theworkman from service.

Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in by either of the parties. However, onbehalf of workman, Exs.W1 to W3 were markedand on behalf of the Management Exs.M1 to M8were marked.

After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed placed before it, the Labour Courtheld that the domestic enquiry conducted by theManagement was valid and the charge framedagainst the workman was proved, but, however,held that the charge was very trivial in its nature andimposing the punishment of penalty of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to thatof the misconduct alleged and a mere warning wassufficient and under those circumstances, directedthe Management to reinstate the workman intoservice with full back wages, continuity of serviceand other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by thesame, the present writ petition is filed by theManagement.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat the Labour Court having held that the domesticenquiry conducted by the Management was validand the charge was proved, would not have takenup the issue of proportionality of punishment on theworkman. It is always open for the Management toimpose a harsh punishment of this nature in view ofthe fact that the workman was creating disharmony in place of work and he has threatened with direconsequences. Whereas, learned counsel for therespondent supported the award passed by theLabour Court and has stated that the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the chargelevelled against the workman was trivial in its nature, as such he was entitled for all the benefitssuch as reinstatement, continuity of service, fullback wages etc and therefore, the award passed bythe labour Court does not call for any interferenceby this Court under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India.

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learnedcounsel on either side and perused the impugnedaward and other material available on record.

I am in complete agreement with thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that once the Labour Court has come tothe conclusion that the domestic enquiry conductedby the Management was valid and the charge wasproved, it is not open for it to consider the issueregarding proportionality of punishment. May be,the charge was trivial in its nature and thepunishment was shockingly disproportionate to thatof the misconduct alleged, but that does not meanthat the workman is entitled for all the benefitswithout any punishment.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion thatawarding of back wages to the respondent-workmanis not called for, particularly when there is noreasoning as to awarding of full back wages, apartfrom the fact that the workman cannot go scot free,without imposing any punishment. Merely becausethe fact that the finding recorded by the LabourCourt that the punishment is shockinglydisproportionate to that of the misconduct allegeditself would not prevent the Court from imposingsome punishment against the workman.

Under those circumstances, the award

passed by the Labour Court is modified to thefollowing extent.

“In the result, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and otherattendant benefits, but without any back wages.”

With the above modification of the impugned Award, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

_________

26-12-2007

rkk