AR. Lakshmanan, J. - (1.) THE above writ appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J., dated 4.12.1995 in W.P. No. 10503 of 1985, reversing the order passed by the 1st respondent/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 62 of 1983 awarding Rs. 3, 000/- by way of compensation in lieu of dismissal from service. THE management is the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant was engaged in the production of textile spinning machinery. It employs about 3, 000 workmen. THE workmen have to work in two shifts. THE various machines are operated at a very high speed and if they remain unattended, it may pose a very risk to the persons nearby as well as the machines. Having regard to the nature of machine operations and the risk factor involved, the workmen are required to maintain a constant vigil and also remain near their work place during the shift hours. Any workman who is found sleeping while on duty and who is away from his working place is invariably awarded the punishment of dismissal. The 2nd respondent was offered employment as an Apprentice on 14.1.1970. Sub-clause 7 of Clause 24 of the Standing Order of the company provides that in awarding the punishment, the employer shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record of the workman and any other extenuating and aggravating circumstances that may exist. On 8.9.1981, the 2nd respondent was in the second shift. At about 10.30 P.M., while the shift in charge along with the Supervisor were going on rounds through the F.R.S. Department, they found the 2nd respondent sleeping, lying behind the E.M.A. High Frequency Hardening Machine Control Panel on a card-board sheet spread on the floor. The Supervisor Trainee was called to wake up the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent woke up, he felt sorry for having slept during duty hours and when he was asked to give his statement, he refused to own his mistake. On 9.9.1981, a show cause notice was issued to the 2nd respondent referring to his sleeping while on duty on 8.9.1981 and calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The 2nd respondent did not give any explanation. He was asked to appear for an enquiry on 21.9.1981. On 18.9.1981 he submitted an explanation in which he denied the charges. The enquiry was held an 8.1.1982, 12.1.1982 and 13.1.1982. In the enquiry, three witnesses by name Krishnamani, Kuthbudheen and Muralidharan were examined in support of the charges. The 2nd respondent examined two witnesses viz., Rajendran and Girinathan. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 27.1.1982 holding that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved. It is also relevant to mention that even prior to the present misconduct on 8.9.1981, on several occasions the 2nd respondent was subjected to disciplinary action and in one instance, it resulted in his dismissal from service during July, 1976. Later, at the instance and intervention of some higher ups, the 2nd respondent and some other dismissed workmen were taken back. On a consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the past record of service of the 2nd respondent, the Executive Director took a decision to dismiss the 2nd respondent from service and the same was conveyed to the Personnel Manager, who issued a communication dated 12.2.1982 to that effect to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute challenging his dismissal. By order dated 22.3.1983 in G.O. Ms. No. 763, Labour and Employment Department, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, neither party let in any oral evidence. The 2nd respondent has marked Exs. W-1 to W-7 and the appellant marked Exs. M-1 to M-35 on their side. Before the Labour Court, the question whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, was taken up for consideration in the first instance. The Labour Court has held that due opportunity was given to the 2nd respondent to vindicate his stand in the enquiry and that the enquiry was fair and proper. In dealing with the question of justification of the findings and the propriety of punishment, the Labour Court considered the evidence let in the enquiry and agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the 2nd respondent slept while on duty. Thereafter, the Labour Court has proceeded to consider whether the misconduct proved against the 2nd respondent warranted the punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the punishment of dismissal was justified and the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against the 2nd respondent. However, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum grant of Rs. 3, 000 to the 2nd respondent as compensation for the loss of his job. Against the award of the Labour Court, the workman/2nd respondent has preferred W.P. No. 10503 of 1985.
(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge it was contended on behalf of the workman/2nd respondent, that the Labour Court has not exercised its power properly. The domestic enquiry conducted, according to the 2nd respondent, was also not proper and the conclusions of the Labour Court are not supported by cogent reasons. Therefore, the 2nd respondent requested this Court to interfere with those findings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also urged that the Labour Court has upheld the punishment of dismissal from service without any proper appreciation of the evidence and hence the Labour Court has erred in law in passing the award. In any event, it was contended that the Labour Court should have interfered with the punishment of dismissal in exercise of its power under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The claim of the 2nd respondent was opposed by the appellant/ management. On behalf of the management it was contended that the Labour Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the punishment of dismissal was justified and the same cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him. In any event, it is contended that the findings of the Labour Court are findings of fact based on evidence held in the domestic enquiry and further, the Labour Court has given its own reasons as to why the punishment cannot be stated to be harsh and excessive. As the conclusion of the Labour Court is supported by valid and cogent reasons, it was submitted before the learned Single Judge that this Court should not interfere with the said finding in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 4.12.1995 Y. Venkatachalam, J., considered that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges proved against the 2nd respondent. The learned Judge has not directed the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent nor has the learned Judge set aside the order of termination. The learned Judge has also not indicated or substituted the punishment imposed on the 2nd respondent by the Labour Court. The learned Judge has merely set aside the award of Labour Court. In paragraph 7 of the order the learned Judge has though observed that it is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent is involved in proved misconduct of sleeping while he was on duty, however, held that on account of the 2nd respondent having slept during the course of his work no injury or damage has been caused to the management. The learned Judge was of the view that the award of Rs. 3, 000 by way of compensation in lieu of dismissal from service, as ordered by the Labour Court, is disproportionate to the proved charges. Holding so, the learned Judge has set aside the award of the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has preferred the above writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. ;