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 No : 349 of 2007 Between: Synergies Doorway Automotive Limited Rep by its Managing Director, Mr.Shekhar Movva, Visakhapatnam. ..... Petitioner. AND The Presiding Officer, the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. .....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No : 349 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner company assails the Award dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.3 of 2004. By the said Award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal of the 2nd respondent-Workman and directed his reinstatement in service with continuity of service but without back wages. The modified punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the 2nd respondent-Workman by the Labour Court. In spite of service of notice being effected, the 2nd respondent-Workman did not choose to put in an appearance before this Court in person or through counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company stated that after the passing of the above Award, the petitioner- company by proceedings dated 11.12.2006 retrenched the services of the 2nd respondent-Workman in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without prejudice to its right to challenge the subject award. Perusal of the said award reflects that the Labour Court concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges leveled against the 2nd respondent- Workman, in connection with assaulting his co-worker, were duly proved. However, the Labour Court interfered on the ground that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the 2nd respondent-Workman was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Pertinent to note, the Labour Court ignored the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner-company and followed the judgments passed by this Court. The Labour Court sought to draw a distinction between the decisions on the ground that the Supreme Court cases pertained to incidents involving assault of superiors and not co-workers. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the power under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 to interfere with the punishment on the ground of proportionality is exceptional and must be exercised judiciously. Discipline within the organization being paramount to the employer, violence inter-se the employees would require to be dealt with strictly. No doubt, assault of a superior would constitute a more serious misconduct. But that does not deviate from the fact that assault of a co-worker would be a serious one too. That being so the action of the Labour Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the 2nd respondent-Workman on grounds of proportionality cannot be sustained. The award dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.3 of 2004 is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Date: 27.10.2010 mrb