JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE special appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated March 10,1993 by which the appellants' writ petitions challenging the orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts reducing the penalties awarded to the workmen-respondents by the employer-appellant have been dismissed.
(2.) RELEVANT facts of all these nine special appeals may be summarised the tabular from as under : S. No. Number & Year of Writ Petition Special Appeal Gist of charge/s against respon-dent Gist of punish- ment impo- sed of Manage- ment Date of judg- ment Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Punish-ment reduced by the Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Grounds for reduc- tion of punish- ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 643/92 (Operator) 197/93 Repeated absence from duty for total 136 l/2 days without prior information & sanction of leave. Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. 01. 05. 91 Withholding of one grade increment without cumumlative effect. Excessive 3746/93 (Conductor) 198/93 Carrying 1 & 5 passengers without ticket on two separate oc-cassions. Withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect & forefeiture of remaining wages of suspension period (Ear-lier punished on four occasions for similar miscronduct) 25. 04. 92 Withholding of two annual grade increments for a period of two years only. - do - 3869/92 (Conductor) 199/93 Withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effective & forefeiture of pay of suspension period 18. 01. 92 Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect only - do - 4856/92 200/93 Withholding of 2 3 & 5 annual grade in-crements with cumulative effect, forefeiture of wages of suspension period and fine of Rs. 500/- 22. 01. 92 Withholding 1 + 1 + l (toal three) annual grade incer-ments without cumulative effect. - do - 5. 1658/92 (Driver) 201/93 Caused accident on 20. 05. 85 Withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect & forefeiture of wages of suspension period 14. 08. 91 Withholding -do-of one annual grade incre-ment with cumulative effect - do - 6. 3427/92 (Conductor) 202/93 Caused loss of one book containing 100 waybills Withholding of 5 annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forefeiture of wages of suspension period. (On four previous occasions he was severely punished ). 28. 10. 91 Stoppage of - do-fivc annual grade increments upto the date of publication of award & forefeiture of half of wages of the suspen-sion period. - do - 7. 3423/92 (Driver) 203/93 Came on duly in drunken stale and collided his bus with another bus of the corporation causing huge damage to both buses. Withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forefeiture of wages of suspension period. 14. 10. 91 Withholding - do-of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. - do - 8. 3435/92 (Accountat) 204/93 Deposited Rs. 10,000/-& Rs. 100/- less in the bank. Withholding of one annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 26. 10. 91 Recorded warning to remain careful in future. - do - 9. 3424/92 (Conductor) 205/93 Taking 2 & 5 passengers without ticket on 18. 11. 74 & 22. 11. 74 respectively. Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect in each case and forfeiture of pay of the period of suspension. 25. 04. 92 Withholding of one grade increment for one year without cumulative effect only. - do - It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the legality, validity and fairness of the domestic inquiries held in these cases either were not challenged or the same were held valid, legal and fair. He further contended that Section 11-A was inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act' )by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (Central Act No. 45 of 1971) with effect from December 15,1971, its provisions are applicable in the cases of discharge and dismissal only and not in other cases of penalties. He further contended that in other kinds of cases i. e. cases in which penalties other than discharge or dismissal are imposed, the provisions of the Act as they existed prior to December 15,1971 are applicable and in such cases penalty Can be reduced on one or more of the following grounds: - i. Want of good faith, ii. victimisation, iii. unfair labour practice, iv. violation of principles of natural justice and v. finding of guilt is perverse. He relied upon M/s India Iron Steel Co. Vs. Their work-men (1), Punjab National Bank Vs. A. L. P. N. B. E. Federation (2), Management of Ritz Theatre Vs. Its/ Workmen (3) Learned counsel , for Respondents duly supported common order under challenge. They contended that the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of penalty as is provided under Item No. l of Schedule II of the Act even if the legality, validity and fairness of the domestic inquiry is not challenged or is held to be legal, valid or fair. Admittedly, penalty of discharge or dismissal has not been imposed upon any employee-respondent by the employer-appellant. As such the provisions of Section 11a of the Act are not applicable in any of these cases. The law as it stood prior to the insertion of Section 11a in the Act would be applicable. It has been observed in M/s Indian Iron Steel Co. Vs. Their Workmen (supra) as follows: "undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own. internal administration and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Industrial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse. " It has been observed in Punjab National Bank Vs. ALPNBE Federation (supra) as follows: "in cases where an industrial dispute is raised on the ground of dismissal and it is referred to the tribunal for adjudication, the tribunal naturally wants to know whether the impugned dismissal was preceded by a proper enquiry or not. Where such a proper enquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of the relevant standing orders and it does not appear that the employer was guilty of victimisation or any unfair labour practice, the tribunal is generally reluctant to interfere with the impugned order. The limits of the tribunal s jurisdiction in dealing with such industrial disputes have been recently considered by this court in the Indian Iron & Steel. Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen 1958 SCR 667 : (AIR 1958 SC 130) and it has been held that the powers of the tribunal to interfere with cases of dismissal are not unlimited because the tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. In this judgment this court has indicated the classes of cases in which the tribunal would be justified in interfering with the impugned order of dismissal. It would and should interfere when there is want of good faith, when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of the principle of natural justice, or when, on the materials, the finding of the management is completely baseless or perverse. The same view has been again expressed by this Court in G. Mckenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, I959-I Lab LJ 285 : (AIR 1959 SC 389 ). " -
(3.) IT has been observed in Workmen of FT & R Co, Vs. Management (4), at page 1233 para 12, as follows : "the punishment to be meted out was entirely within power and jurisdiction of the employer and it was no part of the jurisdiction of a tribunal to decide whether the said punishment was justified except in very rare cases where the punishment is of so grossly out of proportion so as to suggest victimisation or unfair labour practice. This was a position viz-a-viz the amendment as on 15. 12. 71. " It is clear from the abovequoted observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Labour Court cannot act as a court of appeal to substitute its own judgment and the area of interference is limited to the cases of want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice, violation of principles of natural justice and perversity of the finding of guilt. Punishment awarded by an employer can be interfered by a Labour Court on one of the afore said grounds and it is required to record cogent reasons justifying interference. On a careful examination of the records of the Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, it is found that none of the aforesaid grounds exists in any of these cases. No such averment was made in the statements of claims filed by the employee (respondents) before them. The Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Courts have also not mentioned any of these grounds in any of its orders interfering with the punishment awarded by the appellant (employer ). The learned counsel for the workmen-respondents could not also point out the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds on any material on record in any case. No specific reason has been given by the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court in any case for reducing the penalty. Non-issuance of journey-tickets by a conductor to the passengers despite charging fare from them is a serious misconduct. It is an offence punishable under Section 8, Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975. As such it is very difficult to sustain the orders of the Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court and consequently the common order of the learned Single Judge. ;