- (1.) Question raised in this writ petition, which is directed against the award dated, 29.9.84 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, in reference case No. 61/82 relates to the ., jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal under section-11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and also the limits within which the High Court should interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or the National Tribunal.
(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the question raised in this writ petition are that one Kalyan Singh who was employed with the Instrumentation Ltd., was served with a charge-sheet dated, 14.1.80. A domestic enquiry was held against the workman. On the basis of that enquiry, the inquiry officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the report submitted by the inquiry pfficer, the management served a show cause notice containing proposal of dismissal of the workman. Since the explanation submitted by the workman was not found to be satisfactory his service was terminated vide order dated, 8.3.80. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer through the respondent No. 1. Parties could not settle the matter before the Conciliation Officer and therefore, failure report was submitted to the Government. The State Government then made a reference of the dispute relating to termination of the service of the workman under section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1947). The respondent No. 2 submitted its statement of claim and the petitioner submitted written statement. While the Union contended that the workman was not guilty of any delinquency and his dismissal from service was unwarranted and unjustified and that the inquiry was not fair and also that the punishment was highly excessive, the management submitted that the inquiry had been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, full opportunity of defence was given to the workman, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report after considering the evidence produced during the course of inquiry and there was every justification for punishment of dismissal because the workman had used physical force against his officer during the course of his talk in relation to his non-promotion.
(3.) By its order dated, 21.10.83, the labour Court, Kota, held that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was just and fair. It then considered the evidence produced during the inquiry and come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the workman was correctly held as proved. On the question of quantum of punishment the Labour Court held that the workman had entered Service on 8.6.87 as Welder. His service was satisfactory and he was given three promotions between 1967 to 1971. That was indicative of his satisfactory and efficient performance of duties. The Labour Court took notice of the fact that the punishment had been imposed only with reference to the particular act of mis-conduct committed by the workman. The workman had been deprived of his promotion for ten years and there is no allegation of any delinquency except the one with reference to which he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court also took notice of the fact that the workman had been taking active part in the activities of the Instrumentation Employees Union. On that basis, the Labour Court held the punishment of dismissal from service was highly excessive and was not justified. On the basis of this opinion the Labour Court directed that a penalty of stoppage of four grade increments without cumulative effect and forefeiture of the wages for the intervening period will serve the ends of justice and accordingly it passed the impugned award.;