WP/1474/1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1474 OF 1999 OBOI Laboratories, Mumbai ... Petitioner V/s. Nanda Yadav & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. V.P. Vaidya for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Award of the Labour Court, Mumbai dated 1st April, 1998 passed in Reference (IDA) No.576 of 1995. By this Award, the Labour Court refused to grant the respondent No.1, i.e. the workman in the present case, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages; instead the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and back- wages. 2. At the time when the Writ Petition was admitted, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount payable under WP/1474/1999 2 the Award. Accordingly, the amount had been deposited. By an order of 21st September, 1999, this Court permitted the workman to withdraw the amount on furnishing a personal bond. 3. The charges levelled against the respondent No.1-workman were that she indulged in : 24(i). collection of money on premises of the establishment without the permission of the Management; 24(j). that she had engaged in trade within the premises of the establishment; 24(k). that she had engaged in riotous and disorderly behaviour on the premises of the establishment; and 24(l). that she had committed act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. WP/1474/1999 3 4. An enquiry was conducted against the workman. On the Enquiry Officer finding that the charges levelled against the workman had been proved, he submitted a report. The petitioner accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the workman. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute. That dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Mumbai, being Reference (IDA) No.576 of 1995. The parties filed their pleadings before the Labour Court. The workman contended that the enquiry was not held in a fair and proper manner and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. She therefore claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. 6. The Labour Court by Award Part I decided that the enquiry was held in consonance with the principles of natural justice and in a fair and proper manner. It further held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. Thereafter the Labour Court considered whether the punishment imposed on the workman was shockingly disproportionate in its WP/1474/1999 4 powers vested under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was of the view that the misconduct was proved but the punishment imposed on the respondent No.1- workman was disproportionate. The Labour Court observed that considering the gravity of the misconduct, which included a scuffle between the respondent No.1 and another female worker, the punishment imposed on the workman was shockingly disproportionate. This was because the past service record of the workman i.e. for 13 years was without any blemish. The Labour Court was of the view that there was no need to reinstate the workman considering the kind of misconduct that she had committed, nor was she entitled to back-wages. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the amount of Rs.30,000/- would be sufficient compensation in lieu of her dues and reinstatement. 7. The Labour Court while adjudicating the Reference (IDA) No.576 of 1995 has taken a possible view, which in my view is not perverse. The Labour Court has deprecated the conduct of the workman and has therefore not reinstated her although it found that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. However, it has found that the workman had WP/1474/1999 5 put in 13 years of service without any blemish. In fact, there was no evidence on record to show that her past service record was not clean. The Labour Court then considered that her last drawn salary was Rs.920/- per month, and therefore it has awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the respondent No.1-workman in lieu of reinstatement. 8. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Award does not suffer from any infirmity. Moreover, the amount deposited by the petitioner, as awarded by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.576 of 1995, has already been withdrawn by the respondent No.1-workman. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the Award. 9. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 10. Rule discharged. 11. No order as to costs.