Skip to content


Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Mohd. Usman and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 199 (L) of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1984SC321; 1983LabIC1739; (1983)IILLJ386SC; 1983(2)SCALE402; (1984)1SCC152
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act - Sections 11A
AppellantManagement of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Bangalore
RespondentMohd. Usman and anr.
Excerpt:
.....of justice in the concrete situation of a given system. it is common knowledge that a jail appeal or an appeal filed through an advocate does not contain an exhaustive accompaniment of all the evidentiary material or record of proceedings laying bare legal errors in the judicial steps. it is not unusual that a fatal flaw has been discovered by the appellate judges leading to a total acquittal. such a high jurisdiction as is vested by art. 134 calls for an active examination by the judges and such a process will be an ineffectual essay in the absence of the whole record. a preliminary hearing is hardly of any use bearing in mind that what is being dealt with is an affirmation of death sentence for the first time. section 366 of the code requires the court of session which passes a..........confers power on the labour court to evaluate the severity of misconduct and to assess whether punishment imposed by the employer is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. this power is specifically conferred on the labour court under section 11-a. if the labour court after evaluating the gravity of misconduct held that punishment of termination of service is disproportionately heavy in relation to misconduct and exercised its discretion, this court in the absence of any important legal principle would not undertake to reexamine the question of adequacy or inadequacy of material for interference by labour court. we are, therefore, disinclined to interfere with the order passed by the labour court. accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at rs......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this appeal the only question raised is whether the Labour Court was justified in reducing the punishment awarded by the Management for the misconduct committed by the first respondent. The Management had imposed the punishment of termination of service of the first respondent. The Labour Court in exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act reduced the punishment by setting aside the punishment of termination of service and in its place imposed the punishment of stoppage of the increments for two years. Section 11-A confers power on the Labour Court to evaluate the severity of misconduct and to assess whether punishment imposed by the employer is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. This power is specifically conferred on the Labour Court under Section 11-A. If the Labour Court after evaluating the gravity of misconduct held that punishment of termination of service is disproportionately heavy in relation to misconduct and exercised its discretion, this Court in the absence of any important legal principle would not undertake to reexamine the question of adequacy or inadequacy of material for interference by Labour Court. We are, therefore, disinclined to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.

2. If under any interim order of this Court any payment to respondents is withheld the same is directed to be paid within two months from today.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //