Gujarat Electricity Corp. Ltd. and Another vs Madhavsinh Nagjibhai Solanki

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and aside the impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCF) No. 730/1992 (old Reference No. 389/1990), by which while exercising the powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent without back wages, by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

That a departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent alleging inter-alia that while in respect of one daily wager, Motisinh, the inquiry proceedings were going on in the guest house of Gujarat Electricity Board, respondent workman entered in the room in which the inquiry proceedings were being conducted by the concerned Inquiry Officer and one Shri Desai and the respondent workman misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer and interfered with the inquiry proceedings and the respondent workman snatched away the inquiry papers and burnt the same. That while said dispute was pending, petitioner submitted approval application and by order dated 27.10.1989, Industrial Tribunal allowed the approval application by holding that charge and misconduct alleged against respondent has been proved in the departmental inquiry and even the order of dismissal is just and proper and consequently the learned Industrial Tribunal granted the permission to the petitioner to dismiss the respondent. It appears that thereafter and despite the above, respondent raised an industrial dispute challenging his dismissal which was referred to the Labour Court, Anand, which was initially numbered as Reference No. 389/1990, which was renumbered as Reference (LCA) No. 730/1992 and the Labour Court by the impugned judgment and award, quashed and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents without back wages, while exercising the powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Anand, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Koyani, learned advocate for Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that when the charge and misconduct alleged against the respondent came to be proved, which are serious in nature, the Labour Court has materially erred in exercising the powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and has materially erred in interfering with the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that merely because in past there was no misconduct committed by the respondent, it was not open for the Labour Court to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, when the allegations and the misconduct proved against the respondent are very grave and serious. Shri Koyani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon the following decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh,

Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India,

Petition is opposed by Shri Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when it was the first misconduct committed by the respondent and considering the above, when the Labour Court has passed an order of reinstatement only, without back wages, it is requested not to interfere with the same in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that the respondent who was serving as a daily wager, the charge and misconduct of entering the room in which the inquiry proceedings were being conducted by the concerned Inquiry Officer against another daily wager and misbehaving with the Inquiry Officer and interfering with the inquiry proceedings, which was going on against another daily wager and that the respondent workman had snatched away the inquiry papers forcefully, has been established and proved, not only before the Industrial Tribunal in approval application but even before the Labour Court also. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court as such exercised powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was justified in exercising powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfered with the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority? Considering the nature of allegations and the misconduct proved against the respondent referred to herein above, it appears that the Labour Court was not justified in exercising powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfering with the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It appears that the Labour Court has quashed and set aside the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority solely on the ground that in past, there is no misconduct committed by the respondent. However, it is to be noted that the respondent was still serving as a daily wager and even otherwise the charge and misconduct proved against the respondent are serious in nature and except the order of dismissal, there cannot be any other punishment which can be imposed. Considering the above, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority committed any error in passing the order of punishment of dismissal against the respondent.

As observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. (Supra), while exercising the powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal cannot act as if it were an Appellate body. In the case of Mavji C. Lakum (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has further observed and held that power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to be exercised judicially and interference is permissible only when the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings of the domestic inquiry and punishment imposed.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCF) No. 730/1992 (old Reference No. 389/1990), is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.