Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURTIndustrial Dispute - Challenged the Dismissal of workman from services - Guilty of misconduct - Worker lying fast asleep on an iron plate at his working place - Disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in terms of Standing Order 24(1) under the Industrial Employment, 1946 - Whether the enquiry was proper; and (ii) is the finding recorded by the enquiry officer perverse - Respondent herein filed a complaint of unfair labour practice as specified under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act) against the Appellant herein before the Labour Court - HELD THAT:- The Labour Court evidently had taken recourse to Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act which ex facie was inapplicable. The said provision clearly postulates two situations, namely, (i) the misconduct should be of minor or technical character; and (ii) the punishment is a shockingly disproportionate without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee. The past record of service, therefore, is a relevant factor for considering as to whether the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate or not. Thus, before the learned Single Judge an attempt on the part of the Respondent to take recourse to Clause (b) of Item (1) of Schedule IV failed. In absence of any plea of factual victimization and furthermore in absence of any foundational fact having been laid down for arriving at a conclusion of the legal victimization, in our opinion, the Division Bench committed a manifest error in invoking Clause (a) thereof. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, must act within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Although its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms of the provisions of the statute and no other. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a compassionate ground. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the past conduct of the Respondent as also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceeding, we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the Respondent was wholly disproportionate to his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
|