IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 480 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29723/2007 Dated 08/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------- THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (NOW DESIGNATED AS HEAD - RED), INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, IRE STAFF & WORKERS' UNION, C/O INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 480 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, The workman of the petitioner company was issued with a charge memo and in that, the management had framed four charges. After receiving the reply to the charge memo, the management had appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo. The Inquiry Officer, after holding a detailed inquiry, was of the opinion that the management has failed to prove the first three charges against the workman. The only other charge, according to the Inquiry Officer, was proved was the fourth charge. 2. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner company had imposed a punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 3. IRE Staff and Workers' Union had called in question the punishment so imposed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam in an industrial dispute which was originally numbered as I.D. No.19/1997 and later renumbered as I.D. 227/2006. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record and also the findings of the Inquiry Officer, has passed Ext.P8 award and in that has set aside the punishment that was imposed by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner company. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 award, the management was before this court in W.P.(C). 29723 of 2007. 4. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the findings and the conclusions reached by the Industrial Tribunal is WA.480/2008. 2 neither perverse nor capricious, and therefore his interference is not called for in a proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge has further observed, that, only if there is any perversity in the findings and conclusions reached by the Labour Court, then only he can, exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. This is the first principle and nobody can find fault with this reasoning. 5. Aggrieved by these findings of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner company is before us in this writ appeal. 6. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company, would vehemently contend before us, that, neither the Industrial Tribunal nor the learned Single Judge were justified in setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner company, since the enquiry officer in his report has found that the workman was guilty of one of the charges alleged in the charge memo. 7. As we have already noticed, the management had issued a charge memo to the workman. In the said charge memo there were four charges. The last charge against the workman was that when the officers of the Company inspected the godown in Willingdon Island on 10.11.1994, one of the godowns was seen occupied by an unauthorised person and though the workman had knowledge about it, he failed to inform the Company. 8. Admittedly, the workman is not the godown keeper nor the watchman of the godown. He is only a workman. Even if he has come to know of the unauthorised occupation, one of the godowns belonging to the petitioner Management, there is no duty or obligation cast upon the workman to inform the management about the unauthorised persons occupying one of the godowns, which belong to the petitioner WA.480/2008. 3 company. This aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the Inquiry Officer and also by the Tribunal. 9. Here is a case where the workman is not entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the godown. Again he was not assigned the responsibility of passing on all the information which may come to his notice. Further, he was neither the watchman nor the godown keeper and no duty or obligation is cast upon him to inform the management that there is unauthorised occupation in the godown, which belong to the petitioner company. Keeping in view the obligation, responsibility etc. of the workman and also the evidence on record, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly has come to the conclusion that on the charge said to have been proved in the inquiry, the management could not have imposed any punishment much less a punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to reject the writ petition on the ground that there is no perversity in the finding of the Labour Court. 10. Having gone though the award passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we see no infirmity in those orders. Therefore we do not intend to entertain this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.