2007 (4) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the punishment of stoppage of 1 to 4 increments with cumulative effect on the 1 to 53 workers is justified? Whether the 53 workmen are entitled to be paid wages for the period of suspension?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the strike by the Union.
2. Justification of the disciplinary actions taken by the Management.
3. Entitlement of the workmen to wages during the suspension period.
4. Validity of the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect.
5. Application of the doctrine of proportionality in the punishment imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Strike by the Union:
The Union gave a strike notice on March 31, 1972, proposing to go on strike from April 14, 1972, due to the suspension of certain employees and withholding of their salaries. The Management deemed the strike illegal as it was not in consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Despite conciliation proceedings by the Labour Officer, the employees commenced the strike on April 17, 1972, which was considered unlawful.

2. Justification of the Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Management:
The Management initiated disciplinary proceedings against 53 workmen who continued the illegal strike and prevented others from resuming duty. The workmen were placed under suspension, and an ex parte inquiry was conducted due to their non-cooperation. The charges against them were proved, leading to punishments including stoppage of increments for 1-4 years with cumulative effect and non-payment of salary during the suspension period. The Labour Court upheld these actions, finding the inquiry legal and the charges proved.

3. Entitlement of the Workmen to Wages During the Suspension Period:
The Labour Court held that the workmen were not entitled to wages for the suspension period as they were on an illegal strike. This decision was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who found no entitlement to wages for the period they had not worked.

4. Validity of the Punishment of Stoppage of Increments with Cumulative Effect:
The learned Single Judge found the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect to be harsh and set it aside, directing the Management to pay arrears with 12% interest. The Division Bench modified this, allowing stoppage of increments without cumulative effect and setting aside the interest payment order. The Supreme Court found that the Labour Court's award was just, legal, and proper, and the High Court should not have interfered with it.

5. Application of the Doctrine of Proportionality in the Punishment Imposed:
The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of proportionality, which allows judicial review of administrative actions to ensure penalties are not unduly harsh or disproportionate. However, it concluded that the High Court erred in applying this doctrine, as the punishments were appropriate given the serious nature of the charges. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and in accordance with natural justice principles.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the Labour Court's well-considered award. However, considering the long period since the incident and the current industrial peace, the Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, decided not to disturb the limited benefits granted by the Division Bench to the 53 workmen. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.