IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.50 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:21.1.2010 Sh.Naresh Kumar -----Appellant Vs. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Roshan Lal Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge setting aside award of reinstatement of the appellant-workman. 2. The appellant was employed with the UCO Bank as Clerk and served from 1982 to 1998 till a charge sheet was given to him, inter-alia, alleging that on 4.12.1998, he shut Shri P.S.Saini, Assistant Manager of the Bank in the ‘strong room’ and inspite of his frantic knockings, the door was not LPA No.50 of 2010 (O&M) opened. Shri Saini was almost suffocated for about 15 minutes. He also used unparliamentary language and manhandled Shri Saini who was a physically handicapped person. On the same day, he misbehaved with a customer Sarvjit Singh. These charges were held to be proved in enquiry which led to dismissal of the workman vide order dated 30.11.1999 which was converted into order of removal by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.1.2000. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court vide award dated 30.3.2004 held that though, enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, punishment of removal was harsh. Accordingly, exercising power under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Labour Court held that punishment of removal ought to be substituted by stoppage of four increments for one year. Direction to reinstate the workman was accordingly issued. 3. Learned Single Judge found that though the Industrial Tribunal may have competence to interfere with punishment even where enquiry is fair as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt) Limited v. the Management and 2 LPA No.50 of 2010 (O&M) others, (1973) 1 SCC 813, having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct, which stood proved, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of removal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in exercise of supervisory/writ jurisdiction, this Court could not interfere with the award of the Tribunal as held in Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limtied and another, AIR 1984 SC 976. 6. Learned Single Judge considered the above judgment and distinguished the same after relying on later judgment of the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in West Bakaro Colliery (Tisco Limited) v. Ram Pravesh Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 729, holding that where there was unequivocal evidence of misbehaviour towards superiors, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act. 7. It is undoubtedly true that after enactment of Section 11-A of the Act, scope of interference by Labour Court is much wider than earlier. In M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and another v. Their Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130, scope of Labour Court was held to be limited to cases where 3 LPA No.50 of 2010 (O&M) punishment was shockingly disproportionate or where finding of Enquiry Officer was based on no evidence. As a result of enactment of Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court could re-appreciate evidence and could also substitute the punishment. Inspite of this, the power of Labour Court is not unbridled. Interference has to be justified on the principle of proportionality where there is perversity or unreasonableness in the award of punishment. Reference may also be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and another vs. State of Karntaka and others,(2006) 1 SCC 430, observing in the context of Section 11-A that balance had to be struck in industrial relations and object was not to protect interest of workman only. Consideration of discipline has to be given due weight. Labour Court could interfere only where punishment is disproportionate. In case of assault of superior, dismissal could not be held to be disproportionate. Normally, award of Labour Court may not be interfered with by this Court in a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant but in an appropriate case where award of Labour Court is perverse or based on erroneous interpretation of law, such error can 4 LPA No.50 of 2010 (O&M) certainly be corrected. In the present case, learned Single Judge rightly held that the misconduct of the workman of wrongfully confining his superior and also abusing the customer was so serious as not to call for interference. On such an issue, it cannot be held that there may be two views about imposing punishment of removal, as was done by the Bank. The Labour Court, thus, acted beyond jurisdiction in setting aside punishment of removal. 8. We are, thus, unable to find any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 21, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 5