— w w w w w 4- / IN ThE HIH COURT OF K PNPTAKA AT B NGLORE DATED ThIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE TE HON’BLE MR. JTJLTICE V.P.MO!4AN KUK’R WRIT PE’ITION NO.16407/1996 C BETWEEN: — M/s.Dempo Dairy Industries Ltd., Asangi, J emakhandi, District: Bij apur, Represented by its Maning Director. P’TITIONER (By Sri S.V.Shastri, Advocate) AND: - 1. The Presiding Officer, L bour Court, Bijaour. 2. S,T,Moteiro, S/o Thomas, aged 51 years C/o Dernpö Dairy Workers Union, Bandichawl Sanivarpet, Banagatti, District: Bijapur. ESPCNDENTS (By Sri Ramakrishna, for RI, HCGP S i M,C,Nrashimhan, for R2, Advs.) 2 —2— This .P. filed u/a 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annex-c’ dt.22.1.97 and etc. This W.P. coming on for preliminary hear ing in *B group tris day, the Court made the following: — ORDER The oetitioner challenges Annexure—E award, The second respondent is the worker employed by the petitioner as a clerk, since 19.11,1978. On 29.5.1980, the worker ws called upon to despatch 85 bagas of Skimmed milk through M..Srothers Lorry Service. It is alleged that he did not carryout the instructions instead, he despatched only 84 oaqs. A memo was issued t the worker and the worker submitted his explantion stating that he would oay the amount towards the missing bag. It is alleged by the management that as the explanation was unsatisfactory, n enquiry was held and on the basis of the encuiry report, the worker ws dismissed from service. He raised a dispute before the Labour —3— Court. Before the Labour Court, after filing the claim statement, the worker did not appear. The Labour Court caine to the conclusion that dismissal of the worker was valid and it rejected the claim of the worker. The worker challenged the said award before this Court in W.P.No.5141/85. This Court set aside the order of th Labout Court and directed matter to be remanded for fresh consideration. After the matter was remitted back, to the Labour Court, both the management as well as the worked led evidence to defend their respective case. The management contended that they have lost confidence with the worker. A preliminciry issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry was framed, The Labour Court held that domestic enquiry was fair nd proper. it thereafter set aside this order of dismissal. In doing so, the Labour Court called upon the management to reinstate the worker with full backwages and continuity of service. Thsaward is challenged contending inter alia that the same is illegal because according to the petitioner ——4 —4— when once the Labour Court holds that domestic enquiry is fair and proper it ought not to have awarded reinstatement with backwages. This award is chllenqed by the management in this proceedings. 2 I have heard Mr.3.V.Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also respondents. I do not think that this Court need interfere with the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to reinstatemnt is concerned. Merely because the misconduct is proved it does not always warrant the imposition° the extreme punishment of dismissal. The worker had offered to make good tthe loss. But the management was not fair enough to acceot the same and it inuosed the punishment of dismissal. The finding of the Labour Court in so far as it setasides the dismissal has to be uorield. 3, But I do not think that the Labour Court is justified in awarding full backwages to the worker. The worker had admitted the guilt of not delivering one bag of skimmed S S • S —5— milk. The man gement is certainly entitled to impose apropriate punishment for this be misconduct, Such misconduct should not/so unpunished. Considering this aspect at this distany or trial, I feel that the appropriate punishment in this behalf would be to deny a portion of backwages. Taking into account all circimstances, I feel that appropriate course would be to modify the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to back— wages. I setaside the award in this behalf. While confirming the award of reinstatement, I hold that the worker will be entitled for 50% backwaqes as aginst full backwaqes awarded. Writ Petition disposed of as above. 3UDGE ksp/h1*t!.tg9