The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road, Transport Corporation vs Shivashankara Kwaradi

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner-Corporation has filed the above writ petition against the award dated 29.11.2011 made in I.D. No. 110/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding of one increment of the workman for the year 1994 for a period of one year only without cumulative effect which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of the workman.

The respondent/conductor while was on duty, a surprise inspection was conducted on 18.12.1994 on a bus plying from Gulbarga to Chitradurga which was checked at Kampli and thereby it revealed that the respondent-workman has failed to issue tickets to the 9 passengers of Rs. 3/- denomination to each passenger travelling from Gangavati to Kampli. Thereafter, an offence memo was issued to him on 18.12.1994 and the respondent offered unsatisfactory reply to the show cause notice issued. The Disciplinary Authority not satisfied with the reply, on consideration of the entire material on record, has imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two increments with cumulative effect on 31.5.1995. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer which was referred to the State Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Tribunal Act.

The parties were permitted to adduce evidence and to produce their documents. As no enquiry was conducted before imposing punishment to the workman, the workman was examined as W.W.1 and produced the documents Exs.W1 to 4. On behalf of the Management, M.W.1 was examined and 9 documents were got marked as Exs.M.1 to 9. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record by the impugned award dated 29.11.2011 recorded a finding that the misconduct is proved. However, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was modified. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

Respondent served, unrepresented.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Sri L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no domestic enquiry before passing the punishment order. Therefore, the parties were allowed to adduce their fresh evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court while considering the material on record has proceeded to modify the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which is contrary to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to modify any punishment imposed other than the punishment as contemplated under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he sought to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record carefully.

It is an undisputed fact that the charge levelled against the workman has been proved after adducing the evidence and the Labour Court specifically recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the workman stands proved and the punishment imposed was other than the punishment as contemplated under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the same, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the proved misconduct.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the case of The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, specifically held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed other than that as contemplated under Section 11-A of the said Act, which reads as under:

"The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11-A in Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and Another Vs. Their Workmen, this court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation etc., in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11-A are illustrated by this court in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, . When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11-A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry."

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 110/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, is quashed and the reference stands rejected.