IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 8380 of 2006 & 13426 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No: 8380 of 2006 Between: The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... Petitioner. AND The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. WRIT PETITION No: 13426 of 2007 Yellaballi Venkanna. ……….Petitioner. AND Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and others. ………..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 8380 of 2006 & 13426 of 2007 ORDER: The Award dated 11.4.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad-I in L.C.I.D.No.45 of 2004 is subjected to challenge in both these writ petitions. Hence, this common order. W.P.No.8380 of 2006 is filed by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (the Management) and W.P.No.13426 of 2007 is filed by Yellaballi Venkanna (the Workman). By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement visited upon the Workman by the Management and directed his appointment as a Senior Diesel Loco Driver on the last pay drawn by him without increments. He was held disentitled to back wages and the period that he remained out of service was directed not to be counted for any purpose, including retirement benefits. Aggrieved by the relief granted and the reliefs denied respectively, the Management and the Workman are before this Court. The Workman, being a driver in the service of the Management, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for misbehaving with his superiors. The enquiry initiated in the matter culminated in the report dated 8.11.2000 holding that the charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with these findings and after following the due procedure imposed upon the workman the punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 31.3.2001. The Workman appealed against the same but met with failure. He thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of the labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Perusal of the Award under challenge reflects that the Labour Court briefly summarized the above facts and no more. There is no discussion whatsoever as to the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority against the Workman. After referring to the respective arguments of the parties, the Labour Court baldly stated: “It may be seen that the petitioner was (held, sic) not guilty by the Enquiry Officer and it is the Disciplinary authority which comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be given a chance.” On that basis, the Labour Court substituted the punishment as aforestated. The first lapse on the part of the Labour Court was its failure to discharge its jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 in the context of the validity of the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority against the Workman. Thereafter, even if the findings recorded against the Workman were confirmed by the Labour Court, it could have exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. The paragraph extracted from the Award cited supra indicates that the Labour Court exercised such discretionary jurisdiction. However, such exercise must necessarily be accompanied by due reasons explaining as to why the Labour Court found the punishment to be disproportionate. The Award under challenge falls short on this count. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC vs Hoti Lal[1], wherein it was held: “ It needs to be emphasized that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court’s order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. [See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 20.] A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.” In that view of the matter, the cryptic Award under challenge cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad-I for fresh consideration and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 in accordance with established norms and parameters. As the matter has been kept pending sufficiently long, it is in the interest of both the parties that the matter be settled expeditiously. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad-I is accordingly directed to give priority to the subject I.D and dispose of the same after giving due opportunity to both sides expeditiously and in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Date: 27.10.2010 Note: Registry is directed to transmit the L.C Record to the Court below forthwith. B/O mrb [1] 1. (2003) 3 SCC 605