MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-2005-3-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on March 04,2005

MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPLOYERS,MANAGEMENT,COLLIERY,BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD. ETC. V. BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION THROUGH WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA CEMENT LIMITED VS. HABIBULLAH [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TOURNAMULLA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B K MEENA [REFERRED TO]
NEW SHORROCK MILLS VS. MAHESHBHAI T RAO [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD VS. SIRI NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT FORGE CO LTD VS. UTTAM MANOHAR NAKATE [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD VS. N B NARAVADE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMESH KACHCHAP VS. CENTRAL MINE PLANNING & DESIGN INSTITUTE LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN PRESIDENT OF BIHAR ENGINEERING KAMGAR UNION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DHANBAD [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE OF ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D V CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2006-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ACHOM THAMBALNGOU SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER CHENNAI VS. REGISTRAR INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-538] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR NISHAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER, HUKANPUKHURI TEA ESTATE VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB & SIND BANK VS. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-295] [REFERRED TO]
ARVINDER SINGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER SINGH VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
RITZ PRIVATE LTD VS. FELIX FURTADO [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LAKHOO RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. SMT. SAROJINI [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPKUMAR S/O SHIVLAL PAISADELY VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, S E RAILWAY, GARDEN REACH, KOLKATA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
R.K.ROHILLA VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-252] [REFERRED TO]
DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC VS. K JOGI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2008-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
SARAYA SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. LABOUR COURT GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. KHANDERAO TUKARAM GOLE SINCE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-266] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
SOMRA MAJHI VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-102] [REFERRED TO]
Miraz Ahmad VS. Union of India, through the Secretary Home Affairs Department, New Delhi [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-6-93] [REFERRED TO]
RAJABHAI R GADHAVI VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER [LAWS(GJH)-2010-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL MANGER L I C OF INDIA VS. AJITSINH AMIRSINH RAJ INSURANCE AGENT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVSINH NAGJIBHAI SOLANKI VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY CORP LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-214] [REFERRED TO]
L AND T KOMATSU LTD VS. N UDAYAKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
THE SOUTH INDIA BANK LTD. VS. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KER)-2007-2-774] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TETULMARI COLLIERY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF LUK INDIA PRIVATE LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-128] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKANT CHOUBEY, S/O SHRI MANDEEP CHOUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, PROJECT BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, H.E.C CAMPUS, DHURWA, RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAM ORAON S/O LATE PILLAI ORAON VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKOOR MOHAMMAD VS. LABOUR COURT & INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. MUNNIBAI [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-140] [REFERRED TO]
J K SYNTHITICS LTD VS. K P AGRAWAL [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MRF LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAGOPAL B VS. JOLLY XAVIER [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT RAI AGGARWAL; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LUDHIANA VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-189] [REFERRED]
GANAPATHI S. HEGDE S/O. SRIDHAR HEGDE VS. GAJANAN MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE VS. P KUMARASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
V PERIYAKARUPPAN VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-342] [REFERRED TO]
GULF AIR VS. GULF AIR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-197] [REFERRED TO]
Jawahar Lal Rajak VS. Union of India [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
Praveen Kumar VS. Union of India [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
TATA CHEMICALS LTD AND 1 VS. KIRIT B BAROT AND 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-520] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MORNAI TEA ESTATE VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRABHAI RAMALAL PATEL VS. MEHSANA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2024-5-139] [REFERRED TO]
ARVINDER SINGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-327] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDER PAL VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORP [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
D T C VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER GOLCONDA REGION APSRTC VS. MOHD TAJUDDIN [LAWS(APH)-2007-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DERBY TEXTILES LTD., JODHPUR VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, JODHPUR & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-120] [REFERRED]
ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD VS. SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
HOMBE GOWDA EDN TRUST VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2005-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-843] [REFERRED]
BASUDEV SETHI VS. STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. DV CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2006-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH DEBNATH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR SINGH VS. INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. V.K. JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-174] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR NAGAR VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT,ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-249] [REFERRED TO]
M CH SUBBA RAO VS. DEPOT MANAGER [LAWS(APH)-2012-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PAL VERMA VS. TAJ MAHAL HOTEL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO LAKHAN PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-181] [REFERRED TO]
NUGEN MACHINERIES LTD. VS. MINAL A. GOSWAMI & ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
K.L. KADAMB VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-130] [REFERRED TO]
VILAS VITHALRAO TAKALE VS. JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PRASAD THAKUR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
Pradeep Kumar Nishad VS. Union of India [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ANUPKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-216] [REFERRED TO]
SITADAYANANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER VS. HASANBHAI NAZBUDDIN VANKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2005-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLAM TIMBER PRODUCTS LTD VS. SAILESH KUMAR GANTAYAT [LAWS(ORI)-2009-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
FIROJ KHAN VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL VISWAKARMA AND OTHERS VS. RAVENSHAW UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S S&S POWER SWITCHGEAR EQUIPMENT LIMITED VS. E POONGAVANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-1038] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK TEXTILES ENGINEER PVT LTD VS. VIRJIBHAI MAVJIBHAI RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-4-258] [REFERRED TO]
G S R T C VS. AMBARAM M CHAUDHARI [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. T MUNIRAJ NAIDU [LAWS(MAD)-2005-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
AWDHESH KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
Bidya Kant Upadhyay VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHAM PAL SINGH VS. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY SENIOR MANAGER P UNION BANK OF INDIA JALLANDHAR [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-306] [DISTINGUISHED]
Kaushal Kishore Chaturvedi VS. U.P.S.R.T.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-2006-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LTD, ALLWYN UNIT VS. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM ADDITIONAL [LAWS(APH)-2011-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LTD VS. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(APH)-2011-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
B DEVADAS VS. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2012-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
UPSRTC VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALLAHABAD U.P. GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-358] [REFERRED TO]
PARSHU RAM PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
A.GOVINDAN VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
G GOVINDA PILLAI AND ORS VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-192] [REFERRED TO]
COKING COAL LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
R B NARAYAN SINGH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(UTN)-2011-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. M HANUMANTHAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
BINDESHWARI PRASAD VS. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
Digvijay Narayan Singh VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-6-101] [REFERRED TO]
JIW LAL RAM VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAPALI SUBBAREDDY VS. DEPOT MANAGER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2013-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SH. RAM KISHAN (EX-DRIVER) [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-351] [REFERRED TO]
U P S R T C JHANSI VS. MOHD AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. DNYANDEO DHONDU SHINGOTE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-240] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTIN TIRKEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATESMAN LIMITED VS. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
G VIJAYAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-198] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KUMAR VS. M/S HIMACHAL EXICOM COMMUNICATIONS LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
E MOHAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-341] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK VS. SECRETARY COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, ANICKAD REGIONAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. BENNY THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-117] [REFERRED TO]
HIRDEO PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MINISTRY OF HOME [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICER VS. JENISTON DEVARAJ CHARODE [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM VS. LABOUR COURT & INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER N E K R T C VS. H AMARESH [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-196] [REFERRED]
ABDUL MAJID KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF M/S. MRF LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(TLNG)-2025-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. HRISHIKESH MISHRA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-148] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD VS. V G KRISHNAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
K DAMODARAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-517] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR CHANDRA DAS VS. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MAHENDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2025-1-119] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN VS. P SELVARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN SINGH VS. R P G TRANSMISSION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-46] [RELIED ON]
BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. DNYANDEO DHONDU SHINGOTE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-240] [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. KHUMB RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
HARSHADKUMAR B VASIA VS. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS and CHEMICALS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2005-6-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.)The appeal C.A. No. 1339 of 2003 is by the employer. C.A. No. 1340 is by the employee. The employee was working as a muster roll labourer in the employer-Organization. On 19-1-1984, while in employment, he allegedly physically assaulted a superior officer A.K. Singh, Sub-Engineer. He hit him with a tension screw on his back and on his nose. The blow on the nose allegedly resulted in fracture of the nose and severe bleeding. According to the employer, consequent on the incident, the employee remained unauthorizedly absent for about three weeks. A show cause notice along with a memo of charges based on his assault on the superior officer and his unauthorized absence from duty, was served on him. He was charged with violating the services rules of the employer-organization. Pursuant to the objections filed by the employee, an enquiry officer was appointed to hold a domestic enquiry. A proper enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and submitted a report on that basis. On 14-9-1984, based on the findings, the services of the employee were terminated with effect from 15-9-1984.
(2.)At the instance of the employee, a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court did not disagree with the finding at the enquiry either on the inflicting of injuries on the superior officer or on the unauthorized absence and the consequent violations of the service rules. The Labour Court took the view that the punishment of termination inflicted on the employee was punitive in nature. The employee had been kept out of service till the date of the decision by that Court and that was enough punishment in the circumstances. Therefore, exercising its powers under Section 107-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1962, which corresponds to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of termination and ordered reinstatement of the employee but without back wages. The employer filed an appeal before the Industrial Court challenging the interference with the punishment. The employee filed an appeal challenging the denial of back wages. In the appeal filed by the employer, the Industrial Court took the view that the Labour Court acted illegally and perversely in interfering with the punishment awarded on the findings at the enquiry accepted by the Labour Court. Therefore, the Appellate Authority, the Industrial Court, set aside the interference by the Labour Court with the punishment awarded and held that the termination of service as a punishment was justified in the circumstances. Thus, the order of termination issued by the employer was upheld. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the employee claiming back wages was dismissed.
(3.)Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the employee filed W.P. No. 460 of 1999 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the charges against the employee stood proved and the finding in that behalf by the Labour Court had not been challenged by the employee in the appeal filed by him before the Industrial Court, since his appeal challenged only that part of the order of the Labour Court which denied him back wages. Though, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the finding that the charges were proved, it interfered with the punishment. The reasons given were, that taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the misconduct proved, the past behaviour and all other attendant circumstances appearing on record, the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment. As an added reason, it stated that while entertaining the Writ Petition, the High Court had stayed the operation of the order of the Industrial Court, upholding the dismissal and that was also a ground for interfering with the punishment. The High Court had no difficulty in observing that the charge levelled against the employee was a major one, but since the Labour Court had decided to award a lesser punishment, the same should not have been interfered with by the Industrial Court. Thus, the High Court set aside the decision of the Industrial Court and restored the decision of the Labour Court. This meant that the employees reinstatement was ordered but back wages were denied to him.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.