IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 19168 of 2005(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- VARADIYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.575, VARADIYAM, TRIHCUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 2. P.L.SEBASTIAN, SON OF LONAPPAN, PALLISSERY, VARADIYAM, TRICHUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19168/2005 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 18/10/1999 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF AWARD DTD.25/10/2004 IN I.D.NO.101/2002 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19168 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.101/2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. They are challenging Ext.P2 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was, “Whether the dismissal of Sri. P.L. Sebastian, Salesman, is justifiable? If not what are the reliefs entitled to him?” Since the dismissal of the workman was after having been found guilty in an enquiry conducted for that purpose, the Tribunal first considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and found that the enquiry was valid and proper. However, exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal converted the punishment of dismissal into one of discharge. That interference with the punishment is under challenge at the instance of the management in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the misconduct proved against the workman involved W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 2 misappropriation of funds and falsification of records which are very serious misconducts warranting punishment of dismissal. He would argue that the Labour Court and this Court can interfere with punishments imposed by the management only in cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts. He would submit that for misconducts of misappropriation and falsification of records the punishment of dismissal cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconducts. The counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the reason stated for interfering with the punishment, that the past service of the workman was blemishless, is not correct. He also relies on the Supreme Court decision in JANATHA BAZAR (SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE WHOSESALE STORES LTD.) AND OTHERS V. SECRETARY, SAHAKARI NOUKARARA SANGHA AND OTHERS [2000(7) SCC 517]. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perhaps in a more appropriate case, I would have considered the contentions of the petitioner in detail. But here, the Industrial Tribunal has exercised its discretion vested in him W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 3 under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act giving specific reasons which cannot be stated to be perverse. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to upset that finding of the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 4