- (1.) THESE nine petitions involve a common question of law hence they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. To resolve the controversy, the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4856 of 1992 R. S. R. T. C. v. Judge, Labour Court and Ors. , are taken into consideration.
(2.) NON-PETITIONER No. 2 was in the employment of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 2 were initiated as per the Standing Orders. After holding proper enquiry, the disciplinary authority found the respondent No. 2 guilty and imposed the punishment of stoppage of ten annual grade increments. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union and the State Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Udaipur:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . Both the parties were given adequate opportunities by the Tribunal to adduce evidence. The respondent No. 2 did not contest the legality and validity of the disciplinary enquiry but challenged the order only on the ground that the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of ten annual grade increments was harsh and highly excessive and is disproportionate to the mistake committed by him. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by his Award dated January 22, 1992, held that the stoppage of ten annual grade increments was excessive and exhorbitant and he, therefore, reduced the penalty imposed by the petitioner to that of stoppage of three annual grade increments so that the workman may have an opportunity to improve himself. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
(3.) IT is contended by the leaned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") can be pressed in service by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court where the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal is only related to the discharge, dismissal or termination of a workman and not in regard to any other dispute which does not relate to the discharge, dismissal or termination of the employee. His further submission is that in the present case, the legality and validity of the enquiry was not challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not specifically held that the penalty imposed by the the disciplinary authority was excessive and disproportionate but still he reduced the penalty for giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 2 to improve himself which he was not competent to do so. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a case of victimization of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the penalty imposed by the petitioner could not have been reduced. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has supported the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal had ample powers to adjudicate upon the matter in controversy and to decide the adequacy of the punishment/penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority under Sections 7 and 10 read with Schedule II of the Act, 1947.;