HIGH COURT OF CHATISGARH BILA HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA J. SINGLE BENCH : PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No. 4265/2005 Steel Authon'ty of India Limited Versus Gagendera Kumar Mishra and otlmrs ORDER ” POST ON 91’ JULY , 20 10 Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shxivastava Judge HT i ‘ O is dishonesty, which was admitted by him and therefore there Was no scope to further enquily into the matter. . Vide order dated 8.6.2000 (Annexure P—7), the Labour Court recorded its fmding on issue No. 1 that the domestic enquixy was in accordance with the applicable standing standard orders and consistent with principles of natural justice and the same does not suEer fmm any illegality. In so far as issue as to whether punishment imposed on respondent No.1 was just and proper, vide order dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure P—4), it was held by the Labour Court that the punishment imposed upon respondent No.1 was not justined, as the departmental enquiry was initiated against respondent No.1 as well as one R.C. Shanna, who were working as Senior Planning Assistant, in respect of the same transaction and he was also found guilty, but he was subjected to a minor penalty i.e. withholding of increments, resulting in discriminatory action. On such consideration, it was held that the penalty of removal is extremely harsh and excessive and penalty of withholding half of the back wages of respondent No. 1 would be proper. Accordingly, respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated with payment of 500A) of the back wages. . Against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before'the Industrial Court. Respondent No. 1 also preferred an appeal against the part of the order, by which 500A) of the back wages were denied. The Industrial Court, Vide its impugned order dated 31.3.2005 (Annexure P—ll) dismissed both the appeals holding that the order of Labour Court reducing penalty nom removal to withholding of 50%; of back wages on the ground that similarly situated employee was given penalty ofwithholding two annual incfemsnts, docs not suffer mm any illegality. . This petition has been tiled by the employer assailing the validity of order on the ground that the Labour Court as well as tha Industrial Curt committad sexious illegality and exceedsd their jurisdiction in inmrfen'ng With the quantum of punishment and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages. Li}: . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below oompletely failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 could not claim parity of treatment with R.C. Shanna, Senior Planning Assistant, as the charge against him were different. The only allegation against R.C. Shanna was negligence of duty as he failed to maintain proper records of Stores items received and issued in Imprest Stores of material recovery department. On the other hand, charge against respondent No.1 was much more serious and grave as compared to that leveled against said R.C. Shanna. Allegation against respondent No.1 is that while he was working as Planning Assistant, shortages of various items of stores were found and that respondent No. 1 collected huge quantity of items from stores, but they were not handed over to the material recoverydepartrnent stores, thereby committing fraud and dishonesty W in connection with the Company’s business and property. Further submission oflearned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire basis for interfering with the quantum of punishment is based on alleged similarity of charges, which is perverse, as both the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court ignored to consider this aspect and recorded a mechanical finding without consideration of the specific allegations against respondent No. 1 and Senior Planning Assistant R.C. Sharma. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was charged of grave misconduct of committing &aud and dishonesty in connection with Company’s property. Respondent No. 1 had admitted the charges. Thus, it was fully established that he misappropriated the yroperty. The Labour Court also recorded categorical hnding that the enquiry was proper and the charges were proved. In such a circumstance, it is submitted, no scope was left for the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment on the ground of parity of treatment. 10. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the order passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 8r. 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Labour Court possesses vide powers and discretion not only with regard to determination as to whether the domestic enquiry was just and proper but also with regard to the aspect as to whether the quantum of punishment is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and Labour Court enjoys wide discretion in interfering with the quantum of punishment in View of the provision contianed in Section 107 —A of the Act of 1960. Under Section 61 of the Act of 1960, the Lower Court has been empowered to decide dispute regarding which application has been made to it under sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act of 1960. The Labour Court has been empowered to determine question of fact related to the dispute. Section 64 —A of the Act of 1960 provides that nothing contained in the act shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court to make such orders as mav be necessary for the ends ofjustice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Courts. 1 1. Section 107 —A of ths Act of 1960 providas aS under:— “107—A. Power of Labour Court and Industrial Court to gve apyropriate relief in case of discharge o dismissal of employee — Where industrial dispute mlating to the dischargs or dismissal of an employee has been referred to a Labour Court or the Industrial Court for decision under any of the provisions of this Act and in the course of the proceedings the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, as the case may be, is satisned that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal'and direct reinstatement of the employee on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the employee including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, as the cas‘e may be, shall, rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any mesh evidence in relation to the matter.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, a perusal of the order of the Labour Court passed on 10.8.2000 (Annexure P—9) would show‘that the only basis for interfering with the quantum, of punishment imposed pn respondent No. 1 is the fmding that the petitioner has been subjected to penalty of removal from service, whereas R.C. Shanna was Visited with minor penalty of Withholding of two increments and thus, there is no parity in the matter of imposing penalty on two delinquent employees. The other reason stated by the Labour Court is that imposition of penalty of removal from service is harsh and excessive and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. In the order passed by the Industrial Court in appeal, it has been held that as the allegations of misconduct against r respondent No.1 as well as R. C. Shanna were similar and thercfore applying the principles of natural justicé, similar punishment should be imposed for similar allegations. 13. The order of the Labour Court as well as the Appellate Court does not contain any discussions as to What were the charges leveled against respondent No.1 and the charges leveled against Senior Planning Assistant —R.C. Shanna. The order of Labour Court shows that the petitioner raised a speciiic plea that respondent No. 1 and RC. Shanna were working on din'erent post and their duties were different. It has a. I also been submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Court that in so far as allegation against R. C. Shanna are concerned they were with regard to negligence and therefore punishment of withholding two increments for one year was imposed. In order to distinguish the case of respondent No. 1, it is submitted that as ‘far as respondent-No. 1 was concerned, the allegation, which he admitted, were much more serious and grave and no parity could be drawn between the case of the petitioner and that of R.C. Shanna. Without coming to a dehnite conclusion based on application of mind, charges leveled against the two persons, nature of duty performed by them, the Labour Court interfered With the punishment imposed upon respondent No. 1 only on the ground that R.C. Shanna was punished with a penalty 'of withholding two increments and therefore there was no parity. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Labour Court is perverse. 14. Though, it is settled that the jurisdiction of Labour Court while e examining the dispute with regard to correctness and validity of a domestic enquiry and quantum of punishment is very wide, however, while exsrcising the power, the Labour Court is obliged under the law to consider relevant material, attending facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of misconduct in arriving at a conclusion, warranting interference, particularly with the quantum of punishment. The onier of the Industrial Court also suEeIs from the same defect. Without examining the nature of allegations leveled against respondent No.1 and R.C. Shanna, nature of the duties to be performed by them, it has been recorded that as the allegation of misconduct against two Were the same and therefore similar punishment ought to be imposed. To say the leastz the Appellate Authority acted more or less mechanically in amrming the order of the Labour Court on similar consideration again Without going into the contents and details of charges leveled against the petitioner and said R.C. Shanna . A perusal of charge sheet issued to respondent No.1 placed on record as A'nnexure P—l and charge sheet‘issued to R.C. Shanna placed on record as Annexure P—8 would Show that the charges were din'erent and could not be said to be similar. Merely because both of them were charged of misconduct arising out of the same transaction, it could not be assumed that both t are entitled to same treatment in the matter of penalty also. Therefore, the very foundation for interfering with the impugned order of punishment by the Labour Court is completely erroneous. Respondent No.1 and R.C. Sharma had occupied din‘erent post and had din'erent‘” duties to discharge-and a comparison of the allegations in the two charge sheets would show that the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner was much more grave and serious as compared to that leveled against R.C. Shanna. The petitioner though raised this dispute by making specinc submission, before the Labour Court, it did not receive any considerau'on and Labour Court has mechanically recorded that as R.C. Shanna was visited with-penalty of withholding of two increments for oné y€ar, in order to maintain pan'ty, it would bc proper to impose similar penalty‘ However, in the ultimate result, even penalty imposed on R.C. Shanna was not imposed in the case of respondent No.1, but it was withholding of 500A) wages and reinstatement was ordered. This approach of the Labour Court is unsustainable in law. No other circumstance or no other material available on record or other facts and circumstances have been referred to by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court to come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on respondent No.1 was harsh and excessive and therefore liable to be reduced. 15. Though, under Section 107 —A of the Act of 1960, power has been conferred on Labour Court and Industrial Court to award any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal, such power has to be exercised judiciously by taking into consideration the relevant material facts and attending circumstances including oral and documentary evidence available on record ignoring extraneous consideration. Such power could be exercised when Labour Court/Industrial Court is satisned that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. In the present case, in arriving at conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was not justihed, non—existing parity has been sole made basis. 16. In view of the discussion above, the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court sun‘er nom gross perversity and error on apparent on the face of the record. 17. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order datsd 31.3.2005 (Amwxure P—ll) passsd by the Industrial Court in appeal and order datzd 10.82000 (Annexum P~9) paséed by thc Labour Court am hereby by set aside. 18. From the order of the Labour Court, it appeals that While interfering with the quantum of punishment, no other aspect was taken into consideration, for the reason that the Labour Court was swayed by parity consideration. Therefore, it would be proper to remand the case for consideration afresh on the aspect of quantum of punishment in accordance with the law. Labour Court is therefore directed to consider quantum of punishment aspect in the present case in accordance with the law. As respondent No.1 was reinstated pursuant to the order of Labour Court, the case shall be finally decided expeditiously within an outer limit of 6 months, subject to corporation by the parties. Praveen gist:] / . ' i Sd/— " .Manindra Mohan Shrivastava V Judge 19. No order as to cost. ’