Case: Scooters India Limited, Lucknow Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow and Others

1. The special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2305 of 1986 filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Allahabad against the award of the Labour Court in the reference made to it under Section 4(k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Act) in of service of the respondent by an order of reinstatement together with 75 per cent back wages. The respondent too had filed a writ petition i. e. W. P. No. 6769 of 1986 to challenge the Labour Courts award insofar as it provided only for 75 per cent back wages instead of full back wages. The High Court heard both the writ petitions together and by a common order dismissed both the petitions. This special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of W. P. No. 2305 of 1986 and there is no challenge by the respondent against the dismissal of his writ petition W. P. No. 6769 of 1986

Reasoning:
6. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, we do not find any merit in it because the order of termination of service refers only to Clause 14.2(13) of the Certified Standing Orders and not to Clause 14.2(20) of the Standing Orders. With reference to the second contention, the High Court has referred in detail in its order to all the threes and the findings rendered on those charges and as such the High Court cannot be said to have committed a serious error by mistakenly stating in its judgment as followsThe Labour Court after analysing the evidence found that the order of dismissal of the workmen was passed on the basis of the first charge sheet. Separate orders were not passed in regard to the other charge sheets though the record of others also finds place in the dismissal order7. The High Court has considered at length the nature of the powers conferred on the Labour Court by Section) of the Act for setting aside an order of discharge or dismissal of a workmen and substituting it with an order of lesser punishment and as such it cannot be said that High Court has failed to consider the facts in their entirely. As regards the third contention, we may only state that the Labour Court was not unaware of the nature of the charges framed against the respondent or the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer and the acceptance of those findings by the Disciplinary Authority. The Labour Court has observed as followsThe workmen has unfortunately to blame himself for much of the bad blood which has developed between him and the management and therefore his conduct, motivated by ideals which are not relevant has been far from satisfactory. Insofar as it was rough, bordering on rudeness and with highly exaggerated sense of his duties. In these circumstances it will meet the ends of justice if back wages to the extent of 75 per cent are allowed to the workmen. I would make my award accordingly but there shall be no order as to costsIt cannot therefore be said that the Labour Court had exercised its powers under Section) of the Act in an arbitrary manner and not in a judicial manner. The Labour Court has taken the view that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workmen should be given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the petitioner company. It cannot therefore be said that merely because the Labour Court had found the enquiry to be fair and lawful and the findings not to be vitiated in any manner, it ought not to have interfered with the order of termination of service passed against the respondent in exercise of its powers under Section) of the Act