LABOUR COURT ‘CAN’T INTERFERE’ IF MISCONDUCT CHARGE IS PROVED: HC

LABOUR COURT ‘CAN’T INTERFERE’ IF MISCONDUCT CHARGE IS PROVED: HC The Hindu Business Line Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Saturday, Aug 23, 2008 Chennai, Aug. 22. When a charge of misconduct of a workman was found to be proved, the award of the Labour Court granting relief of his reinstatement with 75 per cent back wages was not permissible, the Madras High Court has ruled. Allowing a writ petition preferred by the management of Eveready Industries Ltd, Chennai, challenging the Labour Court, Chennai’s award dated August 26, 2002, Mr Justice K. Chandru set aside the award. Quoting a recent judgment of the Supreme Court (in JK Synthetics Ltd vs KP Agraawal (2007(2) SCC 433), the judge said that the consistent view of the apex court was that in the absence of a finding that the punishment awarded to a workman was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge established, the Labour Court should not interfere with the punishment. In the light of several legal precedents and the Labour Court having found the workman guilty of rash behaviour and it denied 25 per cent back wages, this court was not inclined to entertain another writ petition by the workman praying for grant of the said 25 per cent back wages also. In response to a petition by the workman, the Labour Court had earlier granted reinstatement with 75 per cent of back wages. The petitioner, Eveready Industries, submitted that two charges were levelled against the workman. First, he was charged about his questioning the authority disrespectfully for changing the shift of one workman. In the second charge, when he was shown some dust found in the industrial canteen, he abused the industrial relations officer. The judge said that this was not a case where the Labour Court disbelieved the evidence against the workman. On the contrary, the court disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer solely on the ground that there was no corroboration. Such a finding of the Labour Court was not warranted, the judge ruled. While setting aside the award of the Labour Court, the High Court ruled that the amount already paid to the workman by way of interim order under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act would not be recovered from him.

"Loved reading this piece by Chayanika?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group