AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the
learned single Judge dated 17-6-2004.
The appellant-Management had filed an application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short ''I.D. Act'') for approval of its''
action of dismissal against the second respondent-workman. That application was rejected, but against that order the writ petition has been filed
which was partly allowed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.
The second respondent-workman was a conductor in the services of the appellant. He was absent from duty without leave for about a month.
His explanation was that he was sick with jaundice. However, that explanation was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted and he was found
guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The Management sought approval of its'' action under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, which has been rejected.
Learned single Judge has rightly held that in an application under Sec. 33(2)(b), the Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, cannot sit
in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer unlike in a reference under Sec. 10 of the said Act where, in view of Sec. 11A of the I.D. Act, it
can. However, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that the charge against the workman was not so grave as to justify
an order of dismissal. It is well settled that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the delinquency. In the present case, no doubt the
second respondent workman had not filed his medical certificate earlier but he filed the same before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, on the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge, which is eminently just.
The appeal has no merits. It is dismissed. Connected WAMP No.292 of 2005 is closed.