IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31428 of 2003(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, CIVIL LINES ROAD, COCHIN 682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. A.D.KRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.A.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-14 2. O.N. BHARATHAN, ERAVINELLOOR MANA, KULUKKALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD-679 337. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31428/2003 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DTD. 10/11/1995 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 28/12/1996 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 24/04/2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.157/1994. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/09/1993. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.31428 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The management in I.D.No.157/94 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam challenges Ext.P3 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was, “Whether the dismissal from service of Sri. O. N. Bharathan is justifiable or not? If not what relief he is entitled to? Since the dismissal of the workman was after finding him guilty in a domestic enquiry conducted for the purpose, the Labour Court considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly and the conclusions therein were also supported by legal evidence adduced in the enquiry. Thereafter, on the question of punishment, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the misconducts proved were not serious enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the W.P.(c)No.31428/03 2 workman with half backwages. 2. The learned counsel for the management would contend that the Labour Court totally exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act by interfering with the punishment imposed by the management. According to him, only if the Labour Court finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts, the Labour Court can interfere with the punishment imposed by the management on the workman. He would submit that a mere look at the misconducts proved against the workman would show that no establishment can work with such a workman amidst their workforce. He therefore, seeks quashing of that part of the award by which the Labour Court interfered with the punishment by invoking Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman would submit that even the findings of guilt was not with any evidence on recored, but only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Further according to the learned counsel for the workman, the misconducts are minor W.P.(c)No.31428/03 3 misconducts which do not warrant the serious punishment of dismissal and therefore, the denial of half backwages is sufficient punishment for the workman. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. For deciding this issue I have to first consider what are the misconducts. The misconducts proved against the workman are “ 1. Wilful insubordination and disobedience of reasonable orders of superiors. 2. Habitual late attendance and habitual absence without leave and sufficient causes. 3. Habitual neglect of work and indiscipline. 4. Sleeping while on duty. 5. Leaving work without permission and sufficient reasons” Considered separately, each misconduct may not be serious enough to warrant a serious punishment. But I am of opinion that all these five misconducts taken together would warrant very stringent punishment. No establishment can conduct their business profitably with such workmen, who would be late in attending duty, who is habitually absent without leave, who is habitually negligent in his work, who sleeps while on W.P.(c)No.31428/03 4 duty and leaves the workshop without permission and sufficient reason. That being so, I feel that the workman deserves more stringent punishment which would be an example for other workmen. But taking a lenient view, I direct that the workman shall be reinstated without backwages from today onwards. The petitioner would not be eligible for any other service benefits for the period during which he was kept out of service pursuant to the punishment imposed on him by the management till today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.31428/03 5