P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) The respondent-workman in CWJC No. 3254 of 1998, is the appellant in this appeal. He was employed as the Supervisor under the first respondent-Management. After due enquiry, he was found guilty of theft of an article of the Company. He was, therefore, dismissed from service. The dispute raised by the workman was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the finding in the domestic enquiry did not call for any interference. But in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal. It ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service with back wages and other consequential benefits. It withheld by way of punishment the back wages of the workman from January 29, 1987 to January 7, 1988. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the management filed the Writ Petition CWJC No. 3254/1998(R), contending that having accepted the finding at the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment. It was contended on behalf of the management that the workman was really a Supervisor, who had been given due promotions at appropriate time from Grade-4 to Grade-7, since the management found his work and conduct all along satisfactory. Since the workman was a Supervisor and he was found guilty of theft of the article of the Company, the management lost confidence in him, the order for reinstatement passed by the Labour Court was illegal and not justified. The workman contended that there was no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, since the Labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act properly and the punishment imposed on the workman was too harsh, considering the value of the article allegedly stolen by the workman. The learned single Judge found that even though the Labour Court may have power under Section 11-A of the Act to interfere with the punishment in an appropriate case, in the case on hand, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the management, especially considering the status of the workman and the nature of the charge that was proved against him. The learned Judge held that this was a case where the managements stand that it has lost confidence in the workman could justifiably be accepted and the order of termination found just. Thus the learned single Judge interfered with that part of the award of the Labour Court and quashed the Award to the extent it ordered reinstatement with back wages. Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the workman. While the proceedings were pending, the workman had reached the age of superannuation on July 27, 1997. The learned counsel for the management submitted before us that the retiral dues amounting to Rs. 4,59,145/- inclusive of the tax deducted at source had been paid and the workman had accepted the same.
(2.) Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the Labour Court was justified in taking note of the fact that the workman had an unblemished career of service in the company and the charge that was proved against him, related only to the alleged theft of an article worth Rs. 163/- and it was actually the case of the workman that some one being jealous of him, had planted the recovered material in his scooter without his knowledge and in that situation, the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Labour Court.
(3.) Counsel submitted that under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal has the power to interfere with the punishment, notwithstanding the fact that there was a proper domestic enquiry and a proper finding of guilt has been recorded therein. Counsel submitted that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and it was rightly interfered with by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the punishment. Counsel also submitted that the learned Judge had proceeded under the impression that he was a habitual stealer of the properties of the company, whereas the charge proved against him was only an isolated case of theft.;