Case: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy

proved facts: (A) Title deeds deposited with the appellant for borrowing money were surreptitiously taken away without the permission of the appellant which act amounts to theft. (B) The said documents so stolen were admitted to be used for the purpose of selling the property which amounts to fraud. (C) The documents so taken was sought to be justified by a letter where the signatures are forged amounting to forgery. 17. The question the Labour Court ought to have asked itself while exercising its discretion under Section 11 A should have been whether the reasons given by it that there was no earlier misconduct or that the respondent is an active participant in cultural activities is sufficient to come a reasonable conclusion that a punishment of dismissal was harsh in the background of the finding recorded by itself as to the confidence of the employer on the respondent which according to the Labour Court was shaken by the misconduct. 18. In our opinion with no stretch of imagination either the extenuating circumstances recorded by the Labour Court or the exercise of its discretion could be termed either as reasonable or judicious. In our opinion even the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench erroneously held that the Labour Court had unlimited jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. It is because of the above erroneous legal foundation as to the vastness of power vested with the Labour Court. The High Court accepted the interference by the Labour Court in the award of punishment. Thus, the Labour Court as well as the High Court fell in error in granting the relief to the respondent which is challenged in this petition. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied upon the decisions of this Court in support of her argument. In Air India Corporation (supra) this Court held with reference to loss of confidence as follows:- "...Once bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed the impugned order must be considered to be immune from challenge...." In Francts Kletn & Company Private Ltd. (supra) this Court held:- "In our view when an employer loses confidence in his employee, particularly in respect of a person who is discharging an office of trust and confidence, there can be no justification for directing his reinstatement......" Even this direction is not a valid direction because if once the Company has lost confidence in its employee, it is idle to ask them to employ such a person in another job. What job can there be in a Company which a person can be entrusted with and which does not entail reposing of confidence in that person." In Janta Bazaar South Kanara (supra) this Court held: "....Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled......" "....In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past service record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases." In UPS RTC (supra) this Court held:- "..The employee has been found to be guilty of misappropriation and in such and event, if the appellant-Corporation loses its confidence vis-a-vis the employee, it will be neither proper nor fair on the part of the Court to substitute the finding and confidence of the employer with that of its own in allowing reinstatement. The misconduct stands proved and in such a situation, by reason of the gravity of the offence, the Labour Court cannot exercise its discretion and alter the punishment.." 20. With reference to Section 11-A of the Act, in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Ltd. (supra) thsi Court held:- "...Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation....." "....If a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even though it has now power to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the management, will have to give every cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer...." 21. In CMC Hospital Employees Union & Anr. (supra) this Court held:-" ....Section 11-A..cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The power under Section 11-A of the Act has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision....." 22. In our opinion all the above judgments applies with full force to the facts of this case. The Labour Court has itself come to the conclusion the management has lost confidence in the respondent. If that be the case the question of it exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to alter to reduce the punishment does not arise.23. That apart the reasons given by the Labour Court to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence by using its discretionary power. The fact that the misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again is no ground to condone the misconduct. On the facts of this case as recorded by the Labour Court the loss of confidence is imminent, no finding has been given by the courts below including Labour Court that either the fact of loss of confidence or the quantum of punishment is so harsh as to be vindictive or shockingly disproportionate. Without such finding based on records interference with the award of punishment in a domestic inquiry is impermissible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. With respect, we are unable to agree with these findings of the High Court. In our opinion, there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum. An unfettered discretion is a sworn enemy of the constitutional guaranty against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction leads to unreasonableness. No authority be it an administrative or judicial has any power to exercise the discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons thereof.In our opinion with no stretch of imagination either the extenuating circumstances recorded by the Labour Court or the exercise of its discretion could be termed either as reasonable or judicious. In our opinion even the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench erroneously held that the Labour Court had unlimited jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. It is because of the above erroneous legal foundation as to the vastness of power vested with the Labour Court. The High Court accepted the interference by the Labour Court in the award of punishment. Thus, the Labour Court as well as the High Court fell in error in granting the relief to the respondent which is challenged in this petition.In our opinion all the above judgments applies with full force to the facts of this case. The Labour Court has itself come to the conclusion the management has lost confidence in the respondent. If that be the case the question of it exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to alter to reduce the punishment does not arise.23. That apart the reasons given by the Labour Court to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence by using its discretionary power. The fact that the misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again is no ground to condone the misconduct. On the facts of this case as recorded by the Labour Court the loss of confidence is imminent, no finding has been given by the courts below including Labour Court that either the fact of loss of confidence or the quantum of punishment is so harsh as to be vindictive or shockingly disproportionate. Without such finding based on records interference with the award of punishment in a domestic inquiry is impermissible.