LPA No. 928 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 928 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2010 V.K. Handa ....Appellant. Versus UCO Bank and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal order impugned is dated 25.3.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby allowing the writ petition by setting aside the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court), restoring punishment of removal from service. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant and R.N. Chopra (deceased) were charge-sheeted on 12.10.1998 with the allegation LPA No. 928 of 2009 2 that R.N. Chopra (deceased) caught J.B. Bansal, Assistant Manager of Raipur Rasulpur Branch, from hair and thrashed him with blows. V.K. Handa, appellant herein also thrashed the Assistant Manager with his chappal and thereafter both of them shouted in loud voice and disrespective words were used against the management and J.B. Bansal, Assistant Manager of the Bank. Reply submitted by them were not found satisfactory. In a domestic inquiry, both the workmen participated. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, charges against the workmen were found fully proved. Penalty of dismissal from service was proposed and personal hearing was given to the workmen. The competent authority passed the order of dismissal from service. Workmen preferred an appeal. The appellate authority after hearing the workmen modified the order of punishment of dismissal to removal from service in the case of both the workmen. Both the workmen raised disputes. The Labour Court vide order dated 13.2.2004 observed as under:- “that punishment meted out to the workmen was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and approved against them. The Labour Court has held that enquiry has been conducted in fair and proper manner and there is no infirmity in the enquiry which is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Exercising the powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the punishment of removal is substituted with the punishment of stoppage of four increments for one year to meet the ends of justice. The workman is ordered to be reinstated in service with seventy five percent back wages and other benefits and the punishment is LPA No. 928 of 2009 3 substituted as mentioned above.” 3. Legal heirs of R.N. Chopra challenged the award and punishment awarded by the Labour Court by way of filing CWP No.2504 of 2009 while the bank has challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing CWP No.11806 of 2004 saying the Labour Court was not competent to reduce the punishment. 4. Learned Single Judge vide judgement dated 25.4.2009 allowed the writ petition of the bank, however, dismissed the writ petition of the legal heirs of R.N. Chopra. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the bank vehemently argued that although Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to modify the punishment if the Labour Court finds that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct of the employee – workman, however, in view of the fact that enquiry was found to be properly held and both the workmen were found guilty of thrashing their superior i.e. J.B. Bansal, Assistant Manager of the Bank by catching him from hair and beating him with chappal, hence, punishment of removal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Hombe Gowda Education Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2006(1) SCC 430 and L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and another, 2006(2) SCC 269. 7. In the matter of Hombe Gowda (supra), the Apex Court found that the punishment of dismissal of the workman found guilty of assault on LPA No. 928 of 2009 4 superior at work place cannot be said to be disproportionate so as to shock once conscience when the charges were clearly established. 8. In the matter of L.K. Verma (supra), the Apex Court found that dismissal is justified when workman is found guilty of verbal abuse to his superior. In the present case, workmen were found involved assaulting their superior Assistant Manager of the bank with chappal by catching him from hair. It is a grave misconduct. We are of the view, that workmen are not entitled to any leniency. 9. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to go into the matter of proportionate and quantum of punishment and evaluate the severity of misconduct. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case when the Labour Court itself finds proper enquiry against the workmen and found them guilty of serious misconduct for assaulting their superior with chappal, hence powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought not have been invoked by the Labour Court. 10. We find no infirmity in the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 21.04.2010 sk.