C.W.P.No.12081 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12081 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 05.02.2009 M/s. Ameteep Machine Tools Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I Faridabad and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.K.Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 20.9.1999 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad wherein the workman has been held entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages along with other benefit of continuity of service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been able to prove all the five charges levelled against the respondent-workman before the Labour Court and a finding to that effect has been returned holding therein that charges No.1, 2 and 3 are of grave nature while charges No.4 to 5 are of minor nature, but still, the workman has been reinstated in service with full back-wages and continuity of service. He contends that the Court could not have interfered with the punishment on the basis of the serious allegations which have been proved and as admitted by the Court to be of grave nature. He contends that when the Court itself is accepting that C.W.P.No.12081 of 2000 (O&M) -2- the charges are of grave nature, no leniency could have been exercised by the Court while interefering with the punishment imposed by the Management. He further contends that the Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offence nor has it gone into the aspect whether the punishment meted out to the workman was disproportionate or of such a shocking nature as would call upon the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor has it been held by the Court that the punishment was too harsh on the respondent- workman. What has been relied upon by the Labour Court is that one Shri Akhilesh who was also charge-sheeted and his services were terminated, has been taken back in service by the Management and the Labour Court has also taken into consideration that one Dalip, Ram Sunder Mishra and Jaibir Singh were also charge-sheeted but have been allowed to continue before passing of the dismissal order. He contends that this could not be a ground which would entitle the workman to reinstatement. What was required of the Labour Court was to go into the charges against the workman and then to consider as to whether the punishment which has been given to the workman was justified or not. In any case, he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that where there is serious charge with regard to the misconduct which would lead to lack of discipline and control over the staff, and a person is to be put back in service, such matter should be left to the discretion of the Management as they would be the best Judge to take such decision. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. N.K.Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 554 to contend that the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact encourage C.W.P.No.12081 of 2000 (O&M) -3- indiscipline. The Court should have indicated the reasons as to why it felt that the punishment was disproportionate and, therefore, the order could not have been passed as has been done by the Labour Court. The petitioner herein is the person who had instigated the other employees who had committed the acts and had in fact acted in pursuance thereto. Counsel for the respondent-workman on the other hand contends that this is a case where the workman has been victimized. Out of the total five persons charge-sheeted one, namely, Akhilesh, who has been dismissed but has been taken back in service, the other three were pardoned and taken back in service before the order of dismissal was passed against them. This workman is the only one who has been targeted. He, on this basis, submits that it is a clear case where discrimination would come in as similarly placed employees have been taken back in service on the same charges leaving the respondent-workman. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the other employees who have been taken back in service have admitted their guilt and have apologized to the Management and, therefore, the Management in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the given case had taken back Akhilesh, Dalip, Ram Sunder Mishra and Jaibir Singh. In this view of the matter, he contends that the case of the respondent-workman in the present case is clearly distinguishable from the others. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put-forth by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The charges which have been levelled against the respondent- workman are indeed serious. The factual aspect with regard to the C.W.P.No.12081 of 2000 (O&M) -4- graveness of nature of charges specially with regard to charges No.1,2 and 3 has been admitted by the Labour Court while recording its finding on the charges. The petitioner having proved all the five charges against the respondent-workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court and the Labour Court having accepted the same to be correct, the punishment which has been meted out to the petitioner, could not have been interfered with in the present facts and circumstances of the case as putting back a person who had instigated the other employees would lead to and encourage indiscipline within the work place of the petitioner. That being so, the order passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.9.1999 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad is hereby set aside. At this stage, counsel for the respondent-Workman states that as per the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2000, the petitioners have failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as after 1.9.2003, the workman has not been paid the last wages drawn by him. He contends that the same be granted to him. These are the statutory rights which have been conferred on the workman under the Act and in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it would be open to the respondent-workman to claim the same in accordance with law against the petitioner. February 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No