Skip to content


Management of Craigmore Estate, Kullakamby Post, Nilgiris Dist. Vs. Labour Court, Coimbatore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 1940 of 1978
Judge
Reported in(1981)IILLJ23Mad
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A
AppellantManagement of Craigmore Estate, Kullakamby Post, Nilgiris Dist.
RespondentLabour Court, Coimbatore and anr.
Cases ReferredManagement of Binny Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Court
Excerpt:
- .....it has only taken the relevant factors into consideration for the purpose of interfering with the quantum of punishment. considering the nature of the charges. i do not think that the labour court acted in any parverse manner in interfering with the quantum of punishment. in paragraph 9 of its order, the labour court has set out the factors which have weighed with if for the purpose of dealing with the matter leniently. 3. after the introduction of the s. 11a into the industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) a discretion is given to the labour court and other tribunal mentioned therein to give such other reliefs to the workmen, including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. it is not as if in the present case the.....
Judgment:

1. Certain disciplinary proceedings were taken by the petitioner against the second respondent which culminated in an order of dismissal against the second respondent. The second respondent agitated the mater further but way of industrial dispute which got referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 87 of 1977. Before the Labour Court, the representative on behalf of the second respondent herein seemed to have argued only the question of punishment and it was submitted before the Labour Court that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct alleged against the second respondent. The question has been gone in to by the Labour Court and it found warrant and justification for interfering with the punishment and while ordering reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service, it declined back wages.

2. Before me, Mr. S. Jayaraman, learns counsel for the petitioner, submits that none of the consideration which have weighed with the labour Court are relevant with reference to the matters to be considered under S. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, (14 of 1947) Learned Counsel also places reliance on a judgment of a Bench of this court in Gopala Krishan Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court : (1980)ILLJ425Mad . After having gone through the order of the Labour Court. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court has considered the materials with reference to the two charges framed against the second respondent only for the purpose of findings out as to whether the quantum of the punishment imposed by the petitioner on the second respondent is proportionate with the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct alleged and proved. The charges levelled against the second respondent rate as follows :

(1) He made the following statement to Mr. Damodar, Resident Engineer of the petitioner : 'What do you know about Engineering - balls'.

(2) He raised his first towards Mr. Damodar in an attempt to assault him.

The Labour Court considered the materials and has opined that the charges leveled against the second respondent cannot be held to have been established beyond doubt. But, it has not interfered with order of dismissal passed by the petitioner on this ground and it has only taken the relevant factors into consideration for the purpose of interfering with the quantum of punishment. Considering the nature of the charges. I do not think that the Labour Court acted in any parverse manner in interfering with the quantum of punishment. In paragraph 9 of its order, the Labour Court has set out the factors which have weighed with if for the purpose of dealing with the matter leniently.

3. After the introduction of the S. 11A into the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) a discretion is given to the Labour Court and other Tribunal mentioned therein to give such other reliefs to the workmen, including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. It is not as if in the present case the Labour Court has acted without any material to warrant the interference with the quantum of punished. The Labour Court having exercised its desecration, it is not for this court to interfere with that discretion unless it is shows that the Labour Court acted in a perverse manner. Such is also the view taken by a Bench of the Court in Management of Binny Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Court, Madras : (1979)IILLJ280Mad In view of this position. I am not able persuade myself to interfere with the away of the first respondent in this writ petition. Accordingly the write petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be order as to costs.


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