IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 1951 of 1999(G) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.JAYASENAN, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PO KALLETTUMKARA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, HOTEL ELITE INTERNATIONAL, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PADMANABHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.1951/1999/G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE AWARD PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No.1951 of 1999 (G) ======================= Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the workman involved in ID No.46/1994 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. He is challenging that part of Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court in that ID, whereby, after finding that his dismissal is unjust and unreasonable, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- with 12% interest thereon. 2. The workman was dismissed from service after conducting a domestic enquiry into certain allegations of misconduct leveled against him. The Labour Court after finding that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly, found that for the misconduct proved against the workman the punishment of dismissal is unjust and unreasonable. It is thereafter the relief of payment of compensation of Rs.15,000/- was granted to the workman instead of reinstatement with backwages. O.P. No.1951/1999/G -2- 3. The workman would contend that when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, the normal rule is reinstatement of the workman either with or without backwages with a lesser punishment. For granting the relief of compensation instead of reinstatement, the Labour Court ought to have given reasons. The Labour Court has not given any reason whatsoever for directing payment of compensation instead of reinstatement. The counsel for the management would content that the management has lost confidence in the workman in so far as he is guilty of totally indisciplined behaviour causing financial loss to the management and therefore, the Labour Court was right in ordering payment of compensation instead of reinstatement. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The charges leveled against the workman is that when the management directed the workman to do duty in outdoor catering which work the management had undertaken for a customer, he refused to go for that work consequent to which the management had to engage another man to do the work of the workman which resulted in financial loss to the management. O.P. No.1951/1999/G -3- I do not think that the misconduct proved is that serious to warrant the punishment of dismissal from service. The workman had 17 years of service with the management. The management has no contention that the workman was proceeded against for other misconducts during the said period of 17 years. As such this particular incident is a solitary incident of indiscipline. The amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- granted is palpably insufficient, even if I uphold the grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. The workman was 40 years old at the time of filing of original petition. He has passed 50 years now. The relationship between the parties is also strained. It would not be in the interest of both sides to direct reinstatement now. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if I direct Rs.35,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.15,000/- Accordingly, I modify Ext.P1 award to that extent and direct the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and to pay that amount within one month from today. However, if the second respondent does not pay the said amount within the said period O.P. No.1951/1999/G -4- of one month, there would be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reinstate the workman with full backwages. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp