Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. Date of decision:15-2-2008 Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. ...Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. R. K. Gupta Advocate for the petitioner. ... K. C. Puri, J. Under challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is the award dated 18.8.1999, Annexure P-3, passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, Annexure P-3, by which the punishment of termination of services of respondent No.2 was reduced to that of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. According to the averments of the petitioner, on 1.8.1996, a letter was received from IDDC Ambala to the effect that Station Wagon No.HYK-2123 met with an accident which was being driven by Narain Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -2- Singh, respondent No.2. On inquiry, it was found that Narain Singh, respondent No.2 caused the accident under the influence of liquor and damaged the house of Raghwinder Singh. Narain Singh, respondent No.2 admitted the causing of accident by him under the influence of liquor. Respondent No.2 was placed under suspension and was issued a charge sheet. He submitted his reply and an inquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Committee submitted a report on 7.11.1986 holding Narain Singh, respondent No.2 guilty of charges. Feeling aggrieved against the order of termination, he filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh which was dismissed on 11.8.1989. He filed another application for restoration of his case which was also dismissed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, vide order dated 14.10.1991. The workman then filed Civil Writ Petition No.17212 of 1991 against the award of the Labour Court. The said petition was disposed off with the direction to appear before the Labour Court on 17.11.1992. He withdrew that case with permission to file a fresh one in the Labour Court, Ambala. Eventually, he filed fresh claim petition before the Labour Court at Ambala City. The Labour Court held domestic inquiry conducted against him as valid, fair and proper. The Labour Court also held that the charges levelled against him to the effect that he was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of liquor and thereby he caused financial loss to the management and caused hindrance in its working were proved against Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -3- him but the Labour Court also wrongly held that the punishment of termination of the services of respondent No.2 was unjustified being dis-proportionate to the proved misconduct and ultimately the punishment of termination was reduced to that stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. It was further held that the management shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,500/- on account of damage caused to the vehicle in question. The petitioner is dis- satisfied with the reduction of punishment awarded to the respondent No.2. The petitioner is challenging the said award on the grounds that the respondent No.2 has himself admitted the charges framed against him; that the Inquiry Committee also held that the charges were proved against respondent No.2; that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reducing the punishment; that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the material fact that respondent No.2 joined the service in May,1985 and caused the accident just after one year i.e. in July,1986; that respondent No.2 himself admitted that he consumed liquor and drove the vehicle under the influence of liquor and that the Labour Court itself observed that due procedure prescribed under law was followed while passing the order of termination. Respondent No.2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that this Court shall not ordinarily interfere in the impugned award unless the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was shown to be unjust, perverse or illegal and the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -4- has failed to prove any perversity in the impugned award. Even though the Labour Court finds domestic inquiry to be fair and proper yet under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act ( in short the Act),it has to consider the proportionality of punishment vis-a-vis the misconduct proved and to reduce or to substitute the punishment if it appears to be harsh and disproportionate. In such circumstances, the Labour Court cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction while awarding a less punishment. The Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction and discretion in a judicious manner by properly weighing the circumstances of the case as well as proportionality of the quantum of punishment. This was a stray incident in which he was involved after office hours and that there was no evidence on record that he was a habitual drinker. The substitution of punishment made by the Labour Court was totally legal, proper and within jurisdiction. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the workman was working as a driver. He has not only taken liquor but has damaged the property of third party. The Labour Court has wrongly held that the punishment is harsh. The Labour Court should not have invoked the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. The Labour Court should not normally interfere in the punishment awarded by the department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -5- authority in case Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2730. The power of the Labour Court to reduce the punishment by invoking Section 11-A of the Act has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but it has been submitted that since the workman has taken liquor and has damaged the property of the third party, so the punishment of termination of service cannot be held to be bad. I have carefully considered the said submission. The Writ Court can only interfere in case the Labour Court commits any illegality by passing the award. Reducing the punishment from termination to stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was well within the power of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has exercised the discretion given to it under Section 11-A. That discretion cannot be interfered lightly unless the same is perverse. Authority Divisional Controller (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Conductor has mis-appropriated the money of the Corporation by charging amount from the passengers. An employee who commits mis- appropriation of the funds of the employer loose the confidence and he has no reason to be retained in the employment. In the present case, there is no such report against the workman. It has come on the record that the workman had taken liquor when his co-employee had retired and thereafter caused the accident which resulted in minor loss to the Civil Writ Petition No.5206 of 2000. -6- third party. That act of the petitioner cannot be such which attracts the extreme penalty of termination. By awarding punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and holding that the management is entitled to recovery Rs.5,500/- on account of damage to the third party, the learned Labour Court has passed order which appeal to reason. So, in the above circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Consequently, this writ petition is without any merit and stands dismissed. February 15,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge