M/S Hpl Additives Limited v. Satyabir and Another

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCWP-10774-2023o(O&M)ooo DateoofoDecision:o02.11.2023o o M/SoHPLoADDITIVESoLIMITEDo o o o …Petitionero o Versuso SATYABIRoANDoANOTHERoo o o oooooooooo…Respondentso o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGERo Presento:o Mr.oVikasoSingh,oAdvocateo o o forotheopetitioner.o o o o o Ms.oAbhaoRathore,oAdvocateo o o fororespondentoNo.1/caveator.o o HARSHoBUNGER,oJ.ooo

1.o o Petitionero(M/so HPLo Additiveso Limited)ohaso filedo theoinstanto writopetitionounderoArticleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oseekingo quashingoofoAwardodatedo17.03.2023o(AnnexureoP-7)opassedobyotheolearnedo IndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt-III,oFaridabado(here-in-afteroreferredo too aso `theo Tribunalo below');o whereby,o theo referenceo madeo undero Sectiono 10(1)(c)oofotheoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947o(inoshorto`theo1947oAct')owaso answeredoinofavouroofoworkmano(respondentoNo.1,oherein)oandoanoAwardo waso passedo too theo effecto thato respondento No.1-workmano beo reinstatedo ino serviceowithocontinuityoofoserviceoandofurtherotoopayobackowageso@o50%o fromotheodateoofodemandonoticeoofotheoworkmanotillohisoreinstatementoino service.o

2.o o Briefly,orespondentoNo.1-workmanoraisedoanoindustrialodisputeo regardingoterminationoofohisoservices,owhichowasoreferredoforoadjudicationobyo theoappropriateogovernmentotootheoTribunalobelow.o

3.o o Inotheoclaimostatement,orespondentoNo.1-workmanostatedothatoheo waso appointedo byo theo petitioner-Companyo ono 01.06.2006o ono theo posto ofo Helperoagainstoaovacantoandoregularopostowithoanoassuranceothatohisoserviceso willonotobeoterminatedoandohisolastodrawnosalaryowasoRs.5340.10op.m.oItowaso claimedo byo respondento No.1-workmano thato heo performedo hiso dutieso diligentlyowithoutoanyobreakoandocompletedomoreothano03oyearso–o02omonths'o continuousoserviceowithotheopetitioner-Companyoherein.oRespondentono.1-workmanoallegedothatowithotheosoleointentionotooterminateohisoservices,otheo petitioner-Companyoservedoaofalseoandofabricatedoshowocauseonoticeodatedo

07.04.2009oandothereafter,oissuedoaofalseowarningoletterodatedo10.04.2009otoo himoandosubsequently,oissuedoaofalse,ofabricatedoandoarbitraryocharge-sheeto datedo 25.05.2009;o whereino falseo chargeso wereo levelledo againsto him.o Respondento no.1-workmano furthero claimedo thato ao falseo ando fabricatedo domesticoenquiryowasoinitiatedoagainstohimobyolevellingofalseoallegationsoando theoenquiryonoticeowasoissuedotoohim.oItowasoalsooclaimedobyorespondento No.1-workmanothatotheoenquiryoofficerohadopreparedotheoenquiryoreportoinoano illegaloandoarbitraryomanner.oAccordingotoorespondentoNo.1-workman,oheo joinedotheoenquiryoono15.06.2009;ohowever,oheodidonotosubmitoanyoreplyoando hisosignaturesowereoobtainedoonotheoenquiryoproceedingsounderopressureoofo theo managemento ando hiso falseo statemento waso prepared.o Respondento no.1-workmano claimedo thato theo enquiryo officero ando theo representativeo ofo theo managementohadotoldohimothatotheonextodateoofoenquiryowaso20.06.2009;o however,owhenoheoreachedotheoofficeoofotheocompanyoonotheosaidodate,oheo waitedo foro theo Enquiryo Officero ando theo Managemento representativeo buto nobodyoturnedoupoandorather,oheowasogivenotheonextodateoaso29.06.2009.oAso pero respondento No.1-workman,o ono theo saido day,o ito waso ao strikeo ino theo company;o therefore,o heo waso noto allowedo too entero theo premiseso ofo theo companyoandowasogivenotheonextodateoofoenquiryoaso10.07.2009.oItowasostatedo thato ono theo giveno date,o theo workmano waso noto permittedo too raiseo anyo question/queryo fromo theo Enquiryo Officer,o Managemento Representativeo oro anybodyoelseoandoevenoheowasogivenoaofurtherodateoofoenquiryoaso18.07.2009.o Onotheosaidodateoi.e.o18.07.2009,orespondentoNo.1-workmanoclaimedothatotheo EnquiryoOfficeroobtainedohisosignaturesoonoblankopapersoandoono19.07.2009,o whenoheowentotooattendohisodutiesothenoheowasonotopermittedotooenterointootheo companyo premiseso byo theo Securityo Guardo ando heo waso toldo thato theo Managementohasosuspendedohisoservices;ohowever,onoosuspensionoletterowaso handedooverotoohim.oRespondentono.1-workmanoclaimedothatotheoenquiryowaso noto conductedo accordingo too theo principleso ofo naturalo justiceo ando falseo evidenceo waso recordedo ino theo enquiryo ando hiso serviceso wereo terminatedo illegallyoandounlawfullyoono19.07.2009.oo o o Witho theo afore-saido plea,o theo respondento No.1-workmano claimedoreinstatementowithocontinuityoofoserviceoandofullobackowages.o

4.o o Theo afore-statedo claimo ofo respondento No.1-workmano waso contestedobyotheopetitioner-Companyobyofilingoitsowrittenostatement;owherein,o aopreliminaryoobjectionowasoraisedothatotheoreferenceowasountenableoasotheo workmano waso dismissedo video lettero datedo 31.08.2009o aftero ao full-fledgedo domesticoenquiryoandothereoexistedonooindustrialodispute,oasodefinedoundero Sectiono2Ao ofo theo1947o Act.o Ono merits,o ito waso admittedo thato respondento No.1-workmanowasoappointedobyotheoCompanyoono01.06.2006oonotheopostoofo Helperoandoevenotheolastodrawnosalaryoofotheoworkmanowasonotodisputed.oTheo stando ofo theo petitioner-Companyo beforeo theo Tribunalo belowo waso thato theo workmano waso suspendedo ono 06.05.2009o ando thereafter,o heo waso issuedo ao charge-sheetodatedo25.05.2009;ohowever,otheoworkmanodidonotosubmitoanyo writteno explanationo too theo charge-sheeto ando thereafter,o ano enquiryo waso conductedoagainstohimoaccordingotootheoprinciplesoofonaturalojustice;owherein,o theoworkmanodulyoparticipated;ohowever,oheowasofoundoguiltyoofotheoallegedo misconducto ino theo enquiry.o Subsequently,o ao show-causeo noticeo waso alsoo issuedouponotheoworkmanoalongowithoenquiryoreport;ohowever,oheodidonoto submitoanyowrittenoexplanationotootheosaidoshow-causeonotice;oaccordingly,o heo waso dismissedo video lettero datedo 31.08.2009.o Ito waso deniedo byo theo petitioner-Companyohereinothatotheoworkmanohadoworkedouptoo19.07.2009oaso theo workmano waso statedo too haveo beeno suspendedo ono 06.05.2009o ando thereafter,o heo dido noto comeo presento too marko hiso attendanceo duringo suspension.o Accordingly,o prayero waso madeo foro dismissalo ofo theo claimo statementosubmittedobyorespondentoNo.1-workman.o

5.o o Fromo theo pleadingsoofo theoparties,o theo followingoissueso wereo framedo:-o "1.o Whetherotheoterminationoofoworkmanoisojustifiedooro not,oifonotothenotoowhatorelief,oheoisoentitled?oOPWo

2.o Whethero theo enquiryo conductedo byo respondento iso notofairoandoproper?oOPW"o o o TheoissueoNo.2owasoorderedotoobeotreatedoasoaopreliminaryoissueo andoinoorderotooproveoitsoclaim,otheorespondentoNo.1-workmanoexaminedo himselfoasoWW1oandotenderedotheofollowingodocumentso:-o o Sr.oNo.o Exhibit/o Documento Marko 1o W1o Copyo ofo appointmento lettero ofo Satyabir.o 2o W2o Copyo ofo payo slipo foro theo montho ofo Aprilo2009.o 3o W3o Copyo ofo demando noticeo datedo

22.03.2010.o 4o MarkoAo Copyoofopostaloreceipt.o o o Onotheootherohand,otheopetitioner-Companyohadoalsooexaminedo twoo witnesseso i.e.oMW1-Subhasho Ahlawato ando MW2-Ajayo Yadav,o DGMo

(HR)oandoreliedouponotheofollowingodocumentso:-o Sr.oNo.o Exhibit/o Documento Marko 1o M1o Photocopyoofoenquiryoproceedingso 2o M2o Photocopyooforeportoofopostalo department.o 3o M3o Photocopyoofoshowocauseonoticeo datedo10.08.2009.o 4o M4o Photocopyoofochargeosheetodatedo

25.05.2009.o 5o M1/1o Photocopyoofoletterodatedo05.06.2009o regardingoappointmentoofoEnquiryo Officer.o 6o M1/2o Photocopyoofoenquiryoreportodatedo

01.08.2009.o 7o MW2/1o Photocopyoofosuspensionoletterodatedo

06.05.2009.o 8o MW2/2o Photocopyoofopostaloreceipt.o 9o MW2/3o Photocopyoofospeedopostoreceipt.o 10o MW2/4o Photocopyoofowarningoletterodatedo

10.04.2009.o 11o MW2/5o Photocopyoofoshowocauseonoticeo datedo07.04.2009.o 12o MW2/6o Photocopyoofopostaloreceipt.o 13o MW2/7o Photocopyoofodismissaloletterodatedo

31.08.2009.o 14o MW2/8o Photocopyoofostandingoordersoaso certified.o o

6.o o Ito appearso thato video Ordero datedo 13.08.2021o (Annexureo P-6)o passedobyolearnedoPresidingoOfficer,oIndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabourCourt-III,oFaridabad,otheopreliminaryoissueo(IssueoNo.2)owasodecidedoagainstotheo workman,o byo holdingo thato theo domestico enquiryo conductedo againsto theo workmanowasofairoandoproper.o

7.o o Afteroconsideringotheocircumstances/evidence/materialoavailableo onotheorecord,otheoTribunalobelow,ovideoimpugnedoAwardodatedo17.03.2003o (Annexureo P-7),o answeredo theo referenceo ino favouro ofo respondento No.1-workman,ohereinoandofurtherodirectedotheopetitioner-Companyotooreinstateotheo workmanoinoserviceowithocontinuityoofoserviceoandotoofurtheropayohimobacko wageso @o 50%o fromo theo dateo ofo demando noticeo ofo theo workmano tillooooooooooooooooo hiso reinstatemento ino serviceo byo consideringo hiso lasto drawno salaryo asoo Rs.5350/-op.m.o

8.o o Inotheoafore-mentionedocircumstances,otheopetitioner-Companyo hasofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionobeforeothisoCourt.o

9.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioner,owhileoreiteratingotheofactsoofo theocase,oarguedothatotheoimpugnedoAwardopassedobyotheoTribunalobelowoiso withoutojurisdictionoinasmuchoasothatoinotermsoofoSectiono2Aoofotheo1947oAct,o aorightohasobeenogivenotootheoworkmanotoofileoaoclaimostatementobeforeotheo Tribunalo directlyo withino ao periodo ofothreeo yearso fromo theo dateo ofo his/hero termination.o Itoisosubmittedo thatosinceotheo serviceso ofo theo workmano wereo terminatedoono31.08.2009oandotherefore,otheoperiodoofothreeoyearsoexpiredoono

31.08.2012;o accordingly,o neithero theo workmano couldo fileo ano applicationo underoSectiono2Aoofotheo1947oActonorotheoTribunalohadotheojurisdictionotoo entertaino anyo applicationooro pleao ofo theoworkmano aftero ao periodo ofo threeo years.o Accordingly,o ito iso submittedo thato theo impugnedo Awardo iso withouto jurisdictionoandotheosameoisoliableotoobeoquashed.oLearnedocounseloforotheo petitioner-CompanyofurtheroarguedothatotheoTribunalobelowohasowronglyoheldo thato theo awardo ofo punishmento byo theo managemento waso harsh.o Learnedo counseloforotheopetitioner-Companyosubmittedothatoinotheoinstantocase,oitohaso comeo ono recordo thato theo respondento No.1-workmano waso instigatingo theo fellowoworkmenoandowasonotoobeyingotheoordersoofotheosuperiors,owhicho causedoindiscipline.oItowasofurtherosubmittedothatotheoworkmanousedotooleaveo theoworkowithoutopermissionoandoheoremainedoabsent,owhichoisoanoactoofo insubordinationoandomajoromisconduct.oLearnedocounseloforotheopetitionero furthero arguedo thato ito haso alsoo comeo ono recordo thato respondento No.1-workmanohadoputotwoowoodenopiecesoandoaoboltoinotheoscreenedomaterial,o whichoisoanoactoofosabotageoandodespiteogivingoaowarning,otheoworkmanodido noto mendo hiso wayso ando committedo majoro misconducto ando therefore;o theo punishmentoofodismissalocannotobeocalledoasoaoharshopunishment.oLearnedo counseloforotheopetitionerofurtheroarguedothatoonceotheoTribunalobelowohaso heldotheoenquiryotoobeofairoandoproper;othenotheoAwardoofopunishmentoiso withinotheodomainoofotheomanagement;otherefore,otheopunishmentoawardedotoo respondentoNo.1obyotheoManagementocannotobeocalledoasoaoperverseooroharsh.o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroalsoosubmittedothatoevenootherwise,oitoiso welloestablishedothatograntoofobackowagesoinoallocases,owhereoterminationoiso setoasideo isonoto aonormalo practiceo andotheo Tribunalobelowohaso arbitrarilyo passedo theo Awardo aftero ao periodo ofo nineo years,o whicho iso erroneouso ando contraryotoolaw.oItoisolastlyosubmittedothatotheoTribunalobelowohasomerelyo lookedointootheochargesoandohasonototakenointooconsiderationotheoenquiryo report;o therefore,o ao prayero haso beeno madeo foro quashingo ofo theo impugnedo Awardodatedo17.03.2023o(AnnexureoP-7).o

10.o o Onotheootherohand,oMs.oAbhaoRathore,oAdvocateohasoappearedo ono behalfo ofo respondent-workman/Caveatoro ando haso opposedo theo submissionsomadeobyotheolearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerobyosubmittingo thatotheoimpugnedoAwardoisowelloreasonedoandojustifiedoinotheopeculiarofactso andocircumstancesoofotheocaseoandodoesonotocalloforoanyointerference.oSheo furtherosubmittedothatoonceotheoTribunalobelowohasoexercisedoitsodiscretion,o thenotheosameoshouldonotobeointerferedobyothisoCourt.oItoisosubmittedothatotheo entireo acto ofo theo petitioner-Companyo ino terminatingo theo serviceso ofo respondento No.1-workmano waso ano afterthoughto witho ao soleo objecto too victimizeo theo respondento No.1-workman;o accordingly,o sheo prayedo foro dismissaloofotheoinstantowritopetition.oo

11.o o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedotheo paper-bookowithotheiroableoassistance.o

12.o o Aso regardso theo firsto contentiono ofo theo petitionero thato theo impugnedoawardoisowithoutojurisdictionoasoinotermsoofoSectiono2Aoofotheo 1947oAct,ootheorespondentoNo.1–workmanohadofailedotoosubmitohisoclaimo beforeotheoTribunalobelowowithinoaoperiodoofothreeoyearsofromotheodateoofo terminationo ofo hiso services;o ito iso observedo thato ino theo instanto case,o theo respondentoNo.1–workmanohasonotoexercisedohisorightotoofileoclaimoundero Sectiono2Aoofotheo1947oActoratherotheorespondentoNo.1–workmanohadoraisedo ano industrialo disputeo byo servingo ao demando noticeo upono theo petitioner-Companyoono22.03.2010oi.e.owithinoaoshortospanofromotheodateowhenohiso servicesowereoterminatedoandoitoisotheoStateoGovernment,owhichohadomadeoao referenceo ofo disputeo pertainingo too terminationo ofo serviceso ofo respondentoo No.1–workmanoforoadjudicationotootheoTribunalobelowounderoSectiono10(1)o

(c)oofo1947oAct.oInoRaghuvirov.oG.M.oHaryanaoRoadwaysoHissar,o2014(10)o SCCo301,oitowasoheldothatothereoisonoolimitationofororeferenceotooLabouroCourto underoSectiono10oofoIndustrialoDisputesoActo1947.oItowasoheldothatowordso"Ato anyotime"omentionedoinoSectiono10oofoIndustrialoDisputesoActo1947oclearlyo defineothatolawoofolimitationowouldonotobeoapplicableoquaoproceedingsoofo referenceounderoSectiono10oofoIndustrialoDisputesoActo1947.oOperativeoparto ofoSectiono10oofoIndustrialoDisputesoActo1947oisoquotedoinototo:-oo "10.o Referenceo ofo disputeo too Boards,o Courtso oro GURPREET KAUR Tribunals-(1)oWhereotheoappropriateoGovernmentoisoofo theo opiniono thato anyo industrialo disputeo existso oro iso apprehended,oitomayoatoanyotimeobyoorderoinowriting-oo

(a)o Refero theo disputeo too ao Boardo foro promotingo ao settlementothereof.oo

(b)oReferoanyomatteroappearingotoobeoconnectedowithooro relevantotootheodisputeotooaoCourtoforoinquiry.oo

(c)o Refero theo disputeo oro anyo mattero appearingo too beo connectedowithoororelevantotootheodisputeoifoitorelatesotoo anyo mattero specifiedo ino theo Secondo Schedule,o too ao LabouroCourtoforoadjudication.o o o Thereforeo theo aforesaido contentiono ofo theo petitioner-companyo thatotheoimpugnedoAwardoisowithoutojurisdiction,oisorejected.o

13.o o Asoregardsotheosecondocontentionoofotheopetitionerothatoawardoofo punishmentowasowithinotheodomainoofoManagementoandopunishmentoawardedo toorespondent-workmanocannotobeosaidotoobeoperverseooroharsh;oitoisoobservedo thato theo scopeo ando ambito ofo Sectiono 11Ao ofo theo Industrialo Disputeso Actoooooooooooooooo waso consideredo byo ao Divisiono Bencho ofo thiso Courto ino theo caseo ofooooooooooooooooo PunjaboAnandoLampoEmployeesoUnionov.oPunjaboAnandoLampoIndustryo Ltd.,1996(3)oSCTo56;owhereinoitohasobeenoheldoasofollows:-o "Tillo theo insertiono ofo Sectiono 11Ao ino theo Acto video IndustrialoDisputeso(Amendment)oAct,o1971,otheoLabouro Courto ando theo Tribunalso hado limitedo jurisdictiono too interfereo witho theo actiono takeno byo theo employero aftero holdingodisciplinaryoenquiry.oo InoIndianoIronoandoSteeloCo.oLtd.ov.oTheiroWorkmen,o AIRo1958oSupremeoCourto130;oPunjaboNationaloBanko Ltd.ov.oTheiroWorkmen,oAIRo1960oSupremeoCourto160;o ManagementoofoRitzoTheatreo(P)oLtd.ov.oItsoWorkmen,o AIRo 1963o Supremeo Courto 295o ando M/so Hindo Constructiono ando Engineeringo Co.o Ltd.o v.o Theiro Workmen,oAIRo1965oSupremeoCourto917,otheoSupremeo Courtohadobroadlyolaidodownotheoareaoofointerferenceobyo theoLabouroCourt/IndustrialoTribunalsowhileoadjudicatingo theoodisputesoorelatingootoooodismissalooooroooodischargeoooofoo workmenoandoheld:-oo "undoubtedlyo theo managemento concernedo haso powero too directo itso owno internalo administrationoandodisciplineobutotheopowero isonotolimitedoandowhereoaodisputeoarises,otheo Labouro Courts/Industrialo Tribunalso haveo beeno giveno powero too seeo whethero theo terminationoofoserviceoisojustifiedoandotoogiveo appropriateorelief.oInocasesoofotheodismissalo ono misconduct,o theo Tribunalo doeso not,o however,o acto aso ao Courto ofo Appealo ando substituteoitsoownojudgmentoforothatoofotheo management.oItowillointerfereo(i)owhenothereo iso lacko ofo bonafide;o (ii)o wheno thereo iso victimisationoorounfairolabouropractice;o(iii)o wheno theo managemento iso guiltyo ofo basico erroro oro violationo ofo principleso ofo naturalo justice,o ando (iv)o wheno ono materialo theo findingoisocompletelyobaselessooroperverse."o Ino M/so Hindo Constructiono ando Engineeringo v.o Theiro Workmen,o(supra),otheoSupremeoCourtofurtheroobserved:-oo "Theo awardo ofo punishmento foro misconducto undero theo Standingo Orders,o ifo any,o iso ao matteroforotheomanagementotoodecideoandoifo thereoisoanyojustificationoforotheopunishmento imposedo theo Tribunalo shouldo noto interfere.o Theo Tribunalo iso noto requiredo too considero proprietyooroadequacyoofotheopunishmentooro whethero ito iso excessiveo oro tooo severe.o Buto whereo theo punishmento iso shockinglyo disproportionate,o regardo beingo hado too theo particularoconductoandotheopastorecordooroiso such,oasonooreasonableoemployerowouldoevero imposeoino likeo circumstances,otheoTribunalo mayotreatotheoimpositionoofosuchopunishmento aso itselfo showingo victimisationo oro unfairo labouropractice."o

13.o Ino ordero too confero widero powerso ono theo Labouro Courts/IndustrialoTribunals,otheoParliamentoamendedotheo Act.o Theo Statemento ofo Objectso ando Reasonso iso incorporatedo ino theo Billo byo whicho Sectiono 11Ao o waso introduced,oreadsoasounder:-oo "InoIndianoIronoandoSteeloCompanyoLtd.ov.o TheiroWorkmeno(AIRo1958oSupremeoCourto 130o P.o 138),o theo Supremeo Courto whileo consideringotheoTribunal'sopowerotoointerfereo withotheomanagement'sodecisionotoodismiss,o dischargeo oro terminateo theo serviceo ofo ao workman,o haso observedo thato ino caseo ofo dismissaloonomisconductotheoTribunalodoeso notoactoasoaocourtoofoappealoandosubstituteo itsoownojudgmentoforothatoofotheomanagemento ando thato theo Tribunalo willo interfereo onlyo wheno thereo iso wanto ofo goodo faith,o victimisation,ounfairolabouropracticeoetc.oono theopartoofotheomanagement."o "TheoInternationaloLabouroOrganisationoino itso recommendationo (No.o 119)o concerningo terminationoofoemploymentoatotheoinitiativeo ofotheoemployer,oadoptedoinoJuneo1963,ohaso recommendedo thato ao worker,o aggrievedo byo theoterminationoofohisoemploymentoshouldobeo entitledo too appealo againsto theo terminationo amongoothers,otooaoneutralobodyosuchoasoano arbitrator,oaocourt,oanoarbitrationocommitteeo oroaosimilarobodyoandothatotheoneutralobodyo concernedoshouldobeoempoweredotooexamineo theo reasonso giveno ino theo terminationo ofo employmento ando theo othero circumstanceso relatingotootheocaseoandotoorenderoaodecisiono onotheojustificationoofotheotermination.oTheo Internationalo Labouro Organisationo haso furtherorecommendedothatotheoneutralobodyo shouldo beo empoweredo (ifo ito findso thato theo terminationoofoemploymentowasounjustified)o too ordero thato theo workero concernedo unlesso reinstatedo witho unpaido wages,o shouldo beo paido adequateo compensationo oro affordedo someootherorelief.oInoaccordanceowithotheseo recommendations,oito iso consideredothato theo Tribunal'so powero ino ano adjudicationo proceedingo relatingo too dischargeo oro dismissalo ofo ao workmano shouldo noto beo limitedo ando thato theo Tribunalo shouldo haveo theopoweroinocasesowhereveronecessaryotooseto asideo theo ordero ofo dischargeo oro dismissalo andodirectoreinstatementoofotheoworkmanoono suchotermsoandoconditionsoifoany,oasoitothinkso fito oro giveno sucho otheroreliefso too workmano includingo theo awardo ofo anyo lessero punishmentoinolieuoofodischargeoorodismissalo aso theo circumstanceso ofo theo caseo mayo warrant.o Foro thiso purpose,o ao newo Sectiono 11Ao iso proposedo too beo insertedo ino theo IndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947."o

14.o Theo ambito ando scopeo ofo Sectiono 11Ao cameo too beo consideredobyotheoSupremeoCourtoinoWorkmenoofoM/so Firestoneo Tyreo ando Rubbero Co.o v.o Theo Management,o AIRo1973oSupremeoCourto1227.oInothatocase,otheoApexo Courtoinotheofirstoplaceoreferredotootheolawolaidodownobyo theoCourtoinorespectoofotheojurisdictionoofotheoIndustrialo Tribunal/LabouroCourt.oItoalsooreferredotootheostatemento ofoobjectsoandoreasonsoandoproceededotoosay:-oo "TheoobjectoisostatedotoobeothatotheoTribunalo shouldo haveo powero ino caseso whereo necessary,o too seto asideo theo ordero ofo dischargeo oro dismissalo ando directo reinstatemento oro awardo anyo lessero punishment."o TheiroLordshipsofurtheroheldothat:-o "Evenoaomereoreadingoofotheosection,oinoouro opinion,odoesonotoindicateothatoaochangeoino theolawoasolaidodownobyothisoCourtohasobeeno effected."o TheiroLordshipsothenotookonoticeoofotheorivalocontentionso raisedo ono behalfo ofo theo employeeso ando employerso ando theno referredo too someo principleso ono interpretationo ofo welfareolegislationoandoheld:oo "thato eveno aftero Sectiono 11Ao haso beeno insertedo theo employero ando employeeo cano adduceo evidenceo regardingo legalityo ando validityoofotheodomesticoenquiry,oifooneohado beenoheldobyoanoemployer."o TheoCourtofurtheroheldo:-o "thato theo Tribunalo haso too considero theo evidenceo ando comeo too theo conclusiono oneo wayoorotheoother.oEvenoinocasesowhereoano enquiryohasobeenoheldobyoanoemployeroandoao findingo ofo misconducto arrivedo at,o theo Tribunalocanonowodifferofromothatofindingoino ano appropriateo caseo ando holdo thato noo misconductoisoproved."o TheoCourtofurtheroobserved:-o "Ito haso too beo rememberedo thato ao Tribunalo mayoholdothatotheopunishmentoisonotojustifiedo becauseo theo misconducto allegedo ando foundo provedo iso sucho thato ito doeso noto warranto dismissalo oro discharge.o Theo Tribunalo mayo alsoo holdo thato theo ordero ofo dischargeo oro dismissaloisonotojustifiedobecauseotheoallegedo misconducto itselfo iso noto establishedo byo theo evidence.o Too comeo too ao conclusiono eithero way,o theo Tribunalo willo haveo too reappraiseo theo evidenceo foro itself.o Ultimately,o ito mayo holdothatotheomisconductoitselfoisonotoprovedo oro thato theo misconducto provedo doeso noto warranto theo punishmento ofo dismissalo oro discharge.o Thato iso why,o accordingo too us,ooooooooooooooo Sectiono 11Ao nowo giveso fullo powero too theo Tribunalotoogoointootheoevidenceoandosatisfyo itselfo ono botho theseo points.o Nowo theo jurisdictionoofotheoTribunalotooreappraiseotheo evidenceoandocomeotooitsoconclusionoensureso too ito wheno ito haso too adjudicateo upono theo disputeoreferredotooitoinowhichoanoemployero reliesoonotheofindingsorecordedobyohimoinoao domestico enquiry.o Sucho ao powero too appreciateotheoevidenceoandocomeotooitsoowno conclusionoaboutotheoguiltoorootherwiseowaso alwaysorecognisedoinoaoTribunalowhenoitowaso decidingoaodisputeoonotheobasisoofoevidenceo adducedo beforeo ito foro theo firsto time.o Botho categorieso areo nowo puto ono paro byo Sectiono 11A."o Ono theo questiono ofo quantumo ofo punishmento theiro LordshipsoheldothatopriorotooSectiono11A,otheoTribunalo hadonoopowerotoointerfereowithotheopunishmentoimposedo byotheoManagementoandoitohadotoosustainotheoorderoofo punishmentoimposedoonotheobasisoofoprovedomisconducto unlessoitowasoharshoindicatingovictimisation,obut,oundero Sectiono11A,oevenoifomisconductoisoheldotoobeoproved,otheo Tribunalo mayo beo ofo theo opiniono thato theo ordero ofo dischargeo oro dismissalo foro theo particularo acto ofo misconducto doeso noto importo punishmento byo wayo ofo dischargeo oro dismissalo ando ito cano undero sucho circumstances,oawardotootheoworkmanolesseropunishment.oo Ino parao 45o ofo theo judgmento theiro Lordshipso ofo theo SupremeoCourtotookonoticeoofotheodepartureomadeobyotheo legislatureoinocertainorespectsoinotheolawolaidodownobyotheo SupremeoCourtobyoobservingothat,oforotheofirstotimeopowero hasobeenogivenotootheoTribunalotoosatisfyoitselfowhethero misconductoisoproved.oThisoisoparticularlyosooevenowheno findingso haveo beeno recordedo byo ano employero ino ano inquiryoheld.oTheoTribunalohasoalsoobeenogivenopowerotoo interfereowithotheopunishmentoimposedobyoanoemployer.o TheoprovisootooSectiono11AoemphasizesothatotheoTribunalo hasotoosatisfyooneowayoorotheootheroregardingomisconduct,o punishmentoandotheoreliefotoobeograntedotootheoworkmano onlyoonotheobasisoofomaterialoonorecordobeforeoit.oo Ino parao 48,o theiro Lordshipso furthero observedo thato ifo ao propero enquiryo iso conductedo byo ano employero ando ao correctofindingoisoarrivedoatoregardingomisconduct,oeveno though,oitonowohasopowerotoodifferofromotheoconclusiono arrivedoatobyotheoManagementoitowillohaveotoogiveoveryo cogentoreasonsoinonotoacceptingotheoviewoofotheoemployer.oo Ino parao 58o ofo theo judgment,o theiro Lordshipso againo reiteratedo thiso positiono byo makingo theo followingo observations:-oo "Weo haveo alreadyo expressedo ouro viewo regardingotheointerpretationoofoSectiono11A.o Weo haveo heldo thato theo previouso law,o accordingotootheodecisionsoofothisoCourt,oino casesowhereoaoproperodomesticoenquiryohado beeno held,o waso thato theo Tribunalo hado noo jurisdictionotoointerfereowithotheofindingsoofo misconducto excepto undero certaino circumstances.oTheopositionofurtherowasothato theoTribunalohasonoojurisdictionotoointerfereo witho theo punishmento imposedo byo ano employero botho ino caseso whereo theo misconducto iso establishedo ino ao propero domesticoenquiryoasoalsooinocasesowhereotheo Tribunalo findso sucho misconducto provedo ono theo basiso ofo evidenceo adducedo beforeo it.o Theseo limitationso ono theo powero ofo theo Tribunalso wereo recognisedo byo thiso Courto mainlyoonotheobasisothatotheopowerotootakeo disciplinaryoactionoando imposeo punishmento wasopartoofotheomanagerialofunctions.oThato meanso thato theo law,o aso laido downo byo thiso Courto overo ao periodo ofo years,o hado recognisedocertainomanagerialorightsoinoano employer.o Weo haveo pointedo outo thato thiso positionohasonowobeenochangedobyoSectiono 11A.oTheosectionohasotheoeffectoofoalteringo theo lawo byo abridgingo theo rightso ofo theo employeroinasmuchoasoitogivesopowerotootheo tribunaloforotheofirstotimeotoodifferobothoonoao findingo ofo misconducto arrivedo ato byo ano employeroasowelloasotheopunishmentoimposedo byohim."o Aftero theo judgmento ino M/so Firestoneo Tyreo ando Rubbero Co.'so caseo (supra),o theo Supremeo Courto examinedo theo scopeoofopowerounderoSectiono11AoofotheoActoinoaolargeo numberoofocasesoandoheld:oo "thato theo Labouro Courtso ando Industrialo Tribunalso areo empoweredo noto onlyo too examineo theo fairnesso ofo enquiryo buto alsoo differowithotheofindingsoofotheomanagementoino regardotootheoallegationsolevelledoagainstotheo workmano ando alsoo too awardo lessero punishmento ono theo workmano eveno ifo heo iso foundoguiltyoofomisconductooroallegationoiso heldotoobeoproved."o

15.oEvenoinorespectoofociviloservantsoandotheoemployeesoofo theo statutoryo bodieso aso wello aso agencieso ando instrumentalitiesoofotheoState,otheopoweroofotheoCourtsotoo interfereo witho theo punishmento awardedo byo ao publico employeroisowellorecognised.oo InoBhagatoRamov.oStateoofoHimachaloPradesh,o1983(2)o SLRo626,otheoSupremeoCourtoheldo:-oo "Whereo theo employero actedo arbitrarilyo ino awardingo punishmento theo Courto willo beo justifiedotoodrawoanoinferenceoofoviolationoofo Articleo14oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia."o InoUnionoofoIndiaov.oTulsiramoPatel,o1985-IIoLLJo206,oao Constitutiono Bencho ofo theo Supremeo Courto waso dealingo withotheoscopeoofo Articleo311(2)o ofotheoConstitutionoofo India.o Theo Courto examinedo variouso aspectso ofo theo 'reasonableoopportunityoofohearing'oembodiedoinoArticleo 311oandoobservedo"-oo "Whereo theo Courto findso thato theo penaltyo imposedo byo theo impugnedo ordero oro punishmentoisoarbitraryoorogrosslyoexcessiveo oro outo ofo proportiono too theo offenceo committedooroisonotowarrantedobyotheofactso andocircumstancesoofotheonormsorelevantotoo thato particularo Governmento service,o theo courtowillostrikeodownotheoimpugnedoorder."o InoShankaroDasov.oUnionoofoIndia,o1985-IIoLLJo184,o theiroLordshipsoofotheoSupremeoCourtowereodealingowithoao caseoofoanoemployeeowhoowasodismissedofromoserviceoono theo basiso ofo convictiono foro ao criminalo offence.o Aftero observingothato theocompetento authorityodidopossesso theo powerotoomakeoanoorderoofopunishmentounderoClauseo(a)o ofoprovisooofoArticleo311(2)oofotheoConstitution,otheoApexo Courtofurtheroobserved:-oo "Butothatopowerolikeoeveryopower,ohasotoobeo exercisedofairly,ojustlyoandoreasonably.oTheo rightotooimposeopenaltyo carrieso withoitotheo dutyotooactojustly."o InoRanjitoThakurov.oUnionoofoIndia,o1988-IoLLJo256oaso welloasoinoSardaroSinghov.oUnionoofoIndia,oAIRo1992o Supremeo Courto 417,o theiro Lordshipso ofo theo Supremeo Courtoappliedotheoprinciplesoofoproportionalityoevenoino theocasesoofomembersoofoArmedoForcesoandodeclaredotheo ordersoofopunishmentotoobeoarbitraryoonotheogroundothato theopunishmentowasohighlyodisproportionate.oSomeoofotheo observationsomadeoinoRanjitoThakur'socaseoareoextremelyo relevantoinotheocontextoand,otherefore,oitowillobeousefulotoo referotoothem.oTheseoare:-oo "Theoquestionoofotheochoiceoandoquantumoofo punishmento iso withino theo jurisdictiono ando discretiono ofo theo court-material.o Buto theo sentenceso haso too suito theo offenceo ando theo offender.o Ito shouldo noto beo vindictiveo oro undulyo harsh.o Ito shouldo noto beo soo disproportionateotootheooffenceoasotooshocko theo conscienceo ando amounto ino itselfo too conclusiveoevidencesoofobias.oTheodoctrineoofo proportionalityo aso parto ofo theo concepto ofo judicialoreview,owouldoensureothatoevenoono ano aspecto whicho iso otherwise,o withino theo exclusiveo provinceo ofo theo court-martial,o ifo theodecisionoofotheoCourtoevenoasotoosentenceo isoanooutrageousodefianceoofologic,othenotheo sentenceo wouldo noto beo immuneo fromo correction.oIrrationalityoandoperversionoareo recognisedogroundsoofojudicialoreview."o AlthoughofromotheotwoodecisionsoofotheoSupremeoCourtoino UnionoofoIndiaov.oParmanand,o1997(1)oSCTo60o(SC)oando ino Stateo Banko ofo Indiao v.o Samerandero Kumar,o JTo 1994(1)oSCRo217,osomeodoubtsowereocreatedoaboutotheo powerso ofo theo Higho Courtso etc.o too interfereo witho theo punishmentoawardedobyotheoemployerotootheoemployees,o theopositionohasobeenoclarifiedoinorecentodecisionoinoB.C.o Chaturvedio v.o Uniono ofo India,o JTo 1995(8)o SCo 65o whereinotheoSupremeoCourtohasoheld:oo "thatotheoHighoCourtsoetc.odoopossessowitho theopowerotoointerfereowithotheopunishmento butothisopoweroshouldobeoexercisedowithocareo andocircumspection."o Itois,othus,oclearothatoaociviloservantooroanoemployeeoofoao statutoryobodyooroagencyooroinstrumentalityoofotheoStateo canochallengeotheoterminationoofohisoserviceobyodirectlyo approachingotheoHighoCourtooroCiviloCourt.oTheoCourto cano noto onlyo declareo theo terminationo invalido ono theo groundoofoviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofolawooroprocedureo establishedo byo law,o but,o cano ino ano appropriateo caseo interfereowithotheoquantumoofopunishmentoawardedobyotheo employer.oIfothisobeotheopositionoregardingoaociviloservanto oroanoemployeeoofoanoagencyooroinstrumentalityoofotheo Stateoinowhoseofavourodeclarationoofoinvalidityoregardingo terminationo ofo theo serviceo cano beo grantedo thereo iso noo reasono oro justificationo too accepto ao propositiono ofo lawo whicho wouldo depriveo ao workmano ofo hiso righto too seeko remedyo againsto theo wrongfulo actiono takeno byo theo employer.o Thereo doeso noto appearotoobeoanyo groundo too differentiateocasesoofofirstocategoryoofoemployees,onamely,o civiloservantsoetc.oandotheosecondocategoryoofoemployeeso i.e.otheoworkmenoonotheoissueotootheiroentitlementotooseeko remedyoagainstowrongodoneotoothemobecauseoalloofothemo haveobeenotreatedoatoparoinosoofaroasotheoCourt'sopowerotoo grantoaodeclarationoofonullityoasoregardsotheoterminationo ofotheiroservicesoisoconcerned.oItoisoalsoonecessaryotoobearo ino mindo thato ino ao recento decisiono i.e.o Rajasthano Stateo RoadoTransportoCorporationov.oKrishanoKant,o1995(4)o RSJo 374,o theiro Lordshipso ofo theo Supremeo Courto have,o whileocommentingouponotheopoweroofotheoGovernmentotoo makeooronototoomakeoreferenceoofotheodispute,oobservedo thatothisopoweroisotoobeoexercisedobyotheoGovernmentotoo actuateo theo objecto ofo theo enactmento ando theo ruleo iso too makeo ao referenceo excepto whereo theo disputeo raisedo iso totallyofrivolousoonotheofaceoofoit.oTheiroLordshipsohaveo issuedo ao commando too theo Parliamento ando theo Stateo Legislaturesotoomakeoprovisionsoinoorderotooenableotheo workmeno too approacho theo Labouro Court/Industrialo TribunalodirectlyowithoutoreferenceobyotheoGovernmentoino theo caseso coveredo byo Sectiono 2Ao ofo theo Act.o Thiso iso anothero reasono whyo ito shouldo beo heldo thato theo Governmento cannoto depriveo ao workmano ofo hiso remedyo underotheoActobyorefusingoreference.oo FromotheoaboveoreferredodecisionsoofotheoSupremeoCourto andoofothisoCourt,otheofollowingopropositionsoemerge:-oo

(1)oWhileoexercisingopowerounderoSectiono10o readowithoSectiono12oofotheoAct,otheopoweroofo theo appropriateo Governmento iso administrativeo ando noto judicialo oro quasi-judicial.o

(2)oInoexercisingotheopower,otheoGovernmento iso onlyo requiredo too examineo whethero ano industrialodisputeoexistsooroisoapprehended.o Forothisopurpose,otheoGovernmentocanoprimao facieoexamineotheomatterotoofindooutowhethero aodisputeoexistsooronot.o

(3)oTheoGovernmentocanorefuseotoomakeoao referenceo onlyo ifo ito findso thato theo disputeo soughtotoobeoraisedoisofrivolousoorovexatiouso oro thato theo disputeo soughto too beo raised,o ifo referredo foro adjudication,o willo haveo graveo adverseoconsequenceoonotheoentireoindustryo

(4)oInotheogarboofoexaminationoofoprimaofacieo issueo ofo existenceo oro apprehensiono ofo theo dispute,o theo Governmento cannoto delveo intoo meritso ofo theo disputeo ando makeo ano adjudicationoofotheomeritsoorodemeritsoofotheo actiono ofo theo employer.o Theo Governmento cannotousurpotheojurisdictionoofotheoLabouro Court/IndustrialoTribunalotooadjudicateotheo dispute.o

(5)oInocasesoofoterminationoofotheoserviceso ofotheoworkmenoonotheobasisoofoanoenquiryo byo theo employer,o theo Governmento cannoto declineo too makeo referenceo ono theo groundo thato ao propero domestic/departmentalo enquiryohasobeenomadeobyotheoemployerooro thatotheochargeohasobeenoprovedoorothatotheo allegationofoundoprovedoisoseriousoinonatureo oro thato theo punishmento awardedo too theo workmano iso justo ando proper.o Theo Governmento alsoo cannoto refuseo too makeo referenceo ono theo groundo thato theo actiono takenobyotheoemployerodoesonotosufferofromo lackoofobonaofidesoorothatothatotheoworkmano isoguiltyoofoaograveomisconduct.oAllotheseo mattersolieoinotheoexclusiveodomainoofotheo LabouroCourts/IndustrialoTribunalsowhicho canoexerciseotheiropowerounderoSectiono11Ao ofo theo Acto aso interpretedo ino Workmeno ofooo M/soFirestoneoTyreoandoRubberoCo.ov.oTheo Managemento(supra).o

(6)oTheoGovernmentocannotorefuseotoomakeoao referenceo merelyo becauseo theo employero pleadsothatotheorelationsobetweenotheopartieso areostrained.oThisoisoagainoanoissueowhicho Court/Industrialo Tribunalso whileo consideringo theo questiono ofo reliefo too beo grantedotootheoworkmanoinocaseotheoactionoofo theo employero iso foundo too beo illegalo oro unjustified.o

(7)oTheoGovernmentoisodutyoboundotooapplyo itso mindo too theo demando madeo byo theo workman,otheoreplyoofotheoemployeroandotheo failureo reporto ando iso undero ao statutoryo obligationo too recordo reasonso ando communicateotheosameotootheopartiesowhereo ito declineso too makeo referenceo ando ifo theo Courtofindsothatotheoreasonsoareoextraneouso oro irrelevant,o theo decisionso ofo theo Governmentowillobeoliableotoobeonullified…"o

14.o o Keepingo ino viewo theo afore-statedo legalo position,o ito wouldo beo appositeo too examineo theo findingso retunedo byo theo Tribunalo belowo ino theo impugnedoAwardodatedo17.03.2023o(AnnexureoP-7)o:-o "13.o Asoalreadyomentionedoabove,ovideodetailedoordero datedo 13.08.2021,o thiso Courto haso alreadyo decidedo issueo no.2o(whichowasotreatedoasopreliminaryoissue)oagainstotheo workmanoandoinofavouroofotheorespondentowhereinoitowasooooooo heldo thato theo domestico enquiryo conductedo byo MW1ooooooooooooooooo Sh.oSubhashoAhlawatoagainstotheoworkmanowasofairoando proper.oHowever,oSectiono11-AoofotheoActosaysoasoundero:-o o"Powero ofo Labouro Courts,o Tribunalso ando Nationalo Tribunalso too giveo appropriateo reliefo ino caseoofodischargeoorodismissaloofoworkmeno–owhereo anoindustrialodisputeorelatingotootheodischargeooro dismissalo ofo ao workmano haso beeno referredo too ao Labouro Court,o Tribunalo oro Nationalo Tribunalo foro adjudicationoand,oinotheocourseoofotheoadjudicationo proceedings,o theo Labouro Court,o Tribunalo oro NationaloTribunaloasotheocaseomayobe,oisosatisfiedo thato theo ordero ofo dischargeo oro dismissalo waso noto justified,oitomay,obyoitsoaward,osetoasideotheoorderoofo dischargeoorodismissaloandodirectore-instatementoofo theoworkmanoonosuchotermsoandoconditions,oifoany,o aso ito thinkso fit,o oro giveo sucho othero reliefo too theo workmano includingo theo awardo ofo anyo lessero punishmentoinolieuoofodischargeoorodismissaloasotheo circumstancesoofotheocaseomayoreqire:o oo Providedothatoinoanyoproceedingsounderothiso section,o theo Labouro Court,o Tribunalo oro Nationalo Tribunal,oasotheocaseomayobe,oshallorelyoonlyoonotheo materialsoonorecordo ando shallonoto takeoanyo fresho evidenceoinorelationotootheomatter."o

14.oo Ino caseo titledo aso Managemento ofo Bharato Heavyo ElectricalsoLtd.oVs.oM.oManio&Anr.o2018o(supra),oHon'bleo SupremeoCourtoofoIndiaohasoheldoasoundero:-o

17.o o Inoouroopinion,oonceotheoLabouroCourto upheldotheodepartmentoenquiryoasobeingolegaloando propero theno theo onlyo questiono thato survivedo foro considerationo beforeo theo Labouro Courto waso whetherotheopunishmentoofo"dismissal"oimposedobyo theo appellanto too theo respondentso waso legalo ando propero oro ito requireso anyo interferenceo ino itso quantum.o

18.o o Ino othero words,o theo Labouro Courto shouldohaveothenoconfinedoitsoenquiryotooexamineo onlyo oneo limitedo questiono aso too whethero theo punishmentogivenotootheorespondentsowas,oinoanyo way,odisproportionateotootheogravityoofotheochargeo levelledoagainstothemoandothis,otheoLabouroCourto shouldo haveo examinedo byo takingo recourseo too theo provisionoofosectiono11-AoofotheoIndustrialoDisputeso Act,o 1947o (ino shorto"theo Act")o andotheo lawolaido downobyothisoCourtoinotheocaseoofoTheoWorkmenoofo M/soFirestoneoTyreo&oRubberoCo.oofoIndiao(Pvt.)o Ltd.o Vs.o Theo Managemento &Ors.,o (1973)o 1o SCCo 813,oItowas,ohowever,onotodoneotherebyorenderingo theoorderoofoLabouroCourtolegallyounsustainable.o o o InootherotwoocaseolawsoreliedouponobyolearnedoARo foro respondento titledo aso Chiefo Executiveo Officer,o Districtoooooooooooooo Co-operativeoCentraloBankoLtd.oVs.oK.oHanumanthaoRaooando anothero &o Gurdevo Singho Gillo Vs.Theo Presidingo Officer,o Labouro Court,o Bathindao ando another,o theo mattero waso noto relatedotootheoIndustrialoDisputeoAct,o1947.oTherefore,othoseo caseolawsoareonotoofoanyohelpotootheorespondent.o

15.oo Inotheopresentocaseoasoperotheochargeosheetodatedo

25.05.2009o servedo upono theo workmano byo theo respondent,o copyoofowhichoisoEx.M4,otheofollowingochargesowereolevelledo byotheorespondentoagainstotheoworkman:-o

(i)o o Thatoono05.05.2009oato7:00oP.M.oyouo(workman)o wereoonodutyoandothenoyouoleftoyouroworkoplaceowithoutotheo permissionoofoyourosupervisoroandowereoroamingohereoando thereoinotheo plant.oWheno youro supervisorodido noto findoyouo (workman)oatotheoworkoplaceothenoheohadosearchedoyouobuto youo(workman)owereonotofound.o

(ii)oo Thato ato abouto 8:30o P.M.o youro supervisoro hado noticedothatoyouo(workman)ohadoleftotheoworkoofoscreeningoofo Kinox-10obatchoNo.2009/76ointermittentlyoandoroamingohereo andothereosuspiciously.oWhenoyourosupervisorohadoaskedoyouo theoreasonofororoamingoinothatowayothenoyouo(workman)odido notogiveoanyoreply.o

(iii)oo Thatoato11.00op.m.oafterocompletionoofoyourodutyo youo(workman)odidonotoinformotooyourosupervisoroaboutotheo progresso ofo theo screeningo doneo byo youo ando lefto fromo theo company.o

(iv)oo Thato theo workmano whoo hado startedo doingo theo screeningoimmediatelyoafteroyouohadoinformedotoohaveofoundo aotwooinchowoodenopieceoandoboltofromotheomaterialoscreenedo byoyouo(workman).oItoappearsothatoyouo(workman)ohadoputo thoseo articleso ino theo screenedo materialo whileo leavingo aftero doingoyouroduty.o o o Ao carefulo perusalo ofo theo chargeo sheeto datedo

25.05.2009o(Ex.M4),oitorevealsothatotheochargeonos.1o&o2oareo regardingoleavingoofoworkoplaceobyotheoworkmanoduringodutyo timeo withouto permissiono ofo hiso supervisor.o Thereo iso noo allegationo ofo misbehavioro witho theo supervisoro byo theo workman.oSoofaroasothe,ochargeono.3oisoconcerned,otheosameo isoregarding,onotoinformingotheoprogressoofoscreeningodoneobyo theoworkmanotoohisosupervisorowhileoleavingocompanyoaftero dutyotime.oSoofaroas,othisoallegationoisoconcerned,onothingohaso beenobroughtoonorecordobyotheorespondentothatoitowasodutyoofo theoworkersotoogiveotheoprogressodetailsoofotheoscreeningodoneo byothemotootheirosupervisorodailyobeforeoleavingotheocompanyo afterodutyotime.oNoowrittenodirections/orderoinothisoregardohaso beenoproducedobyotheorespondent.oChargeono.4oagainstotheo workmanoisothatotheotwooinchesowoodenopieceoandoaoboltowereo foundofromotheomaterialoscreenedobyohim.oItoappearedothato workmano hado puto thoseo articleso ino theo screenedo materialo whileoleavingoafteroduty.oThereowasonooallegationoagainstotheo workmanothatoheohadointentionallyoputothoseoarticlesoinotheo screenedomaterial.oNothingohasobeenobroughtoonorecordothato anyoneohadoseenoworkmanoputtingoanyosuchoarticlesoinotheo screenedomaterial.oChargeoNo.4oisoonlyoonotheoapprehensiono basis.o

16.oo Further,o accordingo too MW2o Ajayo Yadavo theo previousorecordoofoworkmanowasonotosatisfactory.oPreviouslyo workmanowasoalsooissuedoaowarningoletteroandoexplanationo letter.oEx.MW2/5oisotheoshowocauseonoticeodatedo07.04.2009o issuedotooworkmanowhereinoitoisomentionedothatoaocomplainto hasobeenoreceivedoagainstohimothatoheodisobeysohisosupervisoro ando alsoo instigateso hiso co-workerso againsto theo company.o Thereafterotheowarningoletterodatedo10.04.2009o(Ex.MW2/4)o wasoissuedotoohim.oHoweveronothingohasocomeoonorecordothato whoohadomadeosuchocomplaintoagainstotheoworkmanoandohowo &oinowhatomanneroheodisobeyedohisosupervisoroandoinstigatedo theootheroco-workers.oItoisoalsoomentionedothatoonowhichodate,o timeoandoplaceoworkmanoallegedlyodisobeyedohisosupervisoro andoinstigatedohisoco-workers.oEvenotheonamesoofoco-workerso whoo wereo allegedlyo instigatedo byo workmano haveo noto beeno mentionedoinotheoshowocauseonoticeoEx.MW2/5.oAllegationso againstotheoworkmanowereototallyovague.oInotheoabsenceoofo anyocogentoandosatisfactoryoevidence,oitoisonotoprovedothatotheo previousorecordoofotheoworkmanowasonotosatisfactory.o

17.oo Keepingo ino viewo theo entireo factso ando circumstances,othisoCourtoisoofotheoconsideredoopinionothato theopunishmentoofotheoterminationofromotheoserviceoawardedo too theo workmano byo theo managemento ofo theo respondento companyoisoquiteoharshoandodisproportionateotootheogravityoofo theochargesolevelledoagainstohim.oThisoCourtoconsidersothato punishmentoofostoppageoofooneoincrementoofotheoworkmanoforo ao periodo ofo oneo yearo insteado ofo dismissingo himo fromo theo serviceowouldobeojustifiedoinothisocase.oRespondentohasonoto disputedotheodateoofoappointmentoandotheomonthlyosalaryoofo workman.oTherefore,orespondentoisoliableotoobeodirectedotoo reinstateotheoworkmanoinoserviceowithocontinuityoofoserviceo witho50%obackowagesobyoconsideringohisosalaryoasoRs.5,340/- .oRespondentoshallopassoanoorderoregardingowith-holdingoofo oneoannualoincrementoofotheoworkmanoforoaoperiodoofooneo year.oAccordinglyoissueono.1oisodecidedoinofavouroofoworkmano andoagainstotheorespondent.o

18.oo Aso ao sequelo too theo findingso aso returnedo byo thiso Courtoonoaboveoissuesounderoadjudication,oasodiscussedoinotheo precedingo paragraphs,o theo presento referenceo iso herebyo answeredo ino favouro ofo theo workmano ando againsto theo respondento ando ano awardo iso passedo too theo effecto thato theo respondentoisodirectedotooreinstateotheoworkmanoinoserviceo withocontinuityoofoserviceoandotoopayobackowageso%o50%ofromo theo dateo ofo demando noticeo ofo theo workmano tillo hiso reinstatementoinoserviceobyoconsideringohisolastodrawnosalaryo aso Rs.5,350/-o pero month.o Theo respondento iso directedo too reinstateotheoworkmanoandotoopayotheoarrearsoofobackowageso withinoaoperiodoofo3omonthsofromotoday,ofailingowhichotheo respondentoshallopayointeresto@o7%op.a.oonotheoarrearsoofo backowagesofromotheodateoofopublicationoofothisoawardotillo realizationoofotheoamount.oRespondentoshallopassoanoordero withholdingoofooneoincrementoofotheoworkmanoforoaoperiodoofo oneo year.o Copieso ofo awardo beo sento too theo authoritieso concernedoandotheofileobeoconsignedotoorecordoroomoafterodueo compliance."o

15.o o Ao perusalo ofo theo aforesaido findingso returnedo byo theo Tribunalo belowowouldoindicateothatotheoTribunalobelow,oinoexerciseoofotheopowerso conferredouponoitounderoSectiono11Aoofotheo1947oAct,ohasoconsideredoeveryo chargeo levelledo byo theo petitioner-Companyo againsto respondento No.1-workman.o Ito haso beeno observedo thato aso faro aso chargeso No.1o ando 2o areo concerned,oitowasoconcerningoleavingoofoworkoplaceobyotheoworkmanoduringo dutyo timeo withouto permissiono ofo hiso supervisor;o however,o thereo iso noo allegationoofomis-behaviourowithotheosupervisorobyotheoworkman.oo o o AsoregardsotheochargeoNo.3othatotheoworkmanodidonotoinformohiso superioro abouto theo progresso ofo theo screeningo doneo byo him,o ito haso beeno observedo byo theo Tribunalo belowo thato thereo waso noo materialo ono recordo too indicateothatoitowasotheodutyoofotheoworkmanotoogiveotheoprogressodetailsoofo theoscreeningodoneobyotheoworkmenotootheirosupervisorodailyobeforeoleavingo theocompanyoafterodutyotime.oItohasobeenoheldothatonoowrittenodirection/ordero inothisoregardohasobeenoproducedobyotheopetitioner-company.oo o o AsoregardsochargeoNo.4othatotwooinchowoodenopieceoandoaobolto wereofoundofromotheomaterialoscreenedobyotheorespondentoNo.1-workman,oito hasobeenoobservedothatotheoworkmanoappearsotoohaveoputothoseoarticlesoinotheo screenedo materialo whileo leavingo aftero dutyo ando thereo waso noo allegationo againstorespondentoNo.1-workmanothatoheohadointentionallyoputothoseoarticleso inotheoscreenedomaterial.oTheoTribunalobelowofurtheroheldothatonothingohaso beeno broughto ono recordo thato anyoneo hado seeno respondento No.1-workmano puttingoanyosuchoarticleoinotheoscreenedomaterial.oAccordingly,otheoTribunalo belowoheldothatoChargeoNo.4owasoonlyoonotheobasisoofoapprehension.oo o o AsoregardsotheocontentionoraisedobeforeotheoTribunalobelowothato theopreviousorecordoofotheoworkmanowasoalsoonotosatisfactory,otheoTribunalo belowohasoreturnedoaofindingothatonothingohasocomeoonorecordothatowhoohado madeocomplaintsoagainstorespondentoNo.1-workmanoandohowoandoinowhato manner,otheoworkmanohadodisobeyedohisosuperiorsoandoinstigatedotheoothero co-workers.o Ito iso furthero heldo thato theo date,o timeo ando placeo wheno theo respondento No.1-workmano iso allegedo too haveo disobeyedo hiso superiorso oro instigatedohisoco-workers,owasoalsoonotoforthcomingoonotheorecordoandothus,o theoallegationsoagainstorespondentoNo.1-workmanowereofoundotoobeototallyo vague.oo

16.o o Keepingoinoviewotheoentireofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase,o theo Tribunalo belowo haso consideredo theo proportionalityo ofo theo punishmento imposedouponorespondentoNo.1-workmanoandoheldothatotheopunishmentoofo terminationo fromo serviceo awardedo too respondento No.1-workmano byo theo petitioner-Companyo waso harsho ando disproportionateo too theo gravityo ofo theo chargesolevelledoagainstohim.oAccordingly,otheoTribunalobelowoheldothatotheo punishmentoofostoppageoofooneoincrementoofotheoworkmanoforoaoperiodoofooneo yearoinsteadoofodismissingohimofromoservice,owouldobeojustifiedoinothisocase.ooo

17.o o Io haveo goneo througho theo impugnedo Awardo datedo 17.03.2023o (AnnexureoP-7)opassedobyotheolearnedoPresidingoOfficer,oIndustrialoTribunal-cum-Labouro Court-III,o Faridabado ando alsoo theo discretiono exercisedo byo it;o howevero ino theo li%hto ofo theo le%alo positiono indicatedo a+oveo ando alsoo theo peculiaro factso ofo thiso case1o "o doo noto findo an,o ille%alit,o ino theo discretiono e)ercisedo +,o theo -ri+unalo +elowo +,o considerin%o thato theo punishmento ofo stoppa%eoofooneoincrementoofotheowor$manoforoaoperiodoofooneo,earoinsteado ofodismissin%ohimofromotheoserviceowouldo+eo;ustifiedoinothisocase.o 1@.o o Furthermore, the peripheries of certiorari jurisdiction of High Court stands authoritatively delineated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard, to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or

questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.

¶8It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconducted or contravened."

14.o o "nooviewooofootheoofore%oin%oodiscussion#oofindin%oonooomeritoinotheo o o o

    #

  %,

'    %  # ,#  

November 02, 2023

(HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet

JUDGE