Judgment:
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Cases Referred:
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary and Another, (1997) 11 SCC 370;Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1938) 2 SCC 442, 1983 SCC (L and S) 342;Gulzar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 738
JUDGEMENT
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. Intra Court Appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18134 of 1994. The petitioner in the said writ petition has filed the present appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge and as well the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
2. The respondents herein, employed in Bharath Gold Mines Limited, K.G.F., were dismissed from service after conducting a Departmental Inquiry on the charge of theft and fraud. It is alleged that, on 3-2-1985 at about 4-45 p.m. the 7 workmen, who are respondents herein, were found supplying mining sponge gold to one Kunimhan alias Kundu Mohiddeen at his house at Andersonpet, K.G.F., which amounted to misconduct as per the Standing Order No. 15(b)(23) and 15(b)(34). In the Domestic Enquiry, the respondents were found guilty and they were dismissed.
3. A dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the charge of theft, fraud and illegal possession of mining sponge gold has been proved, however, taking a lenient view by invoking the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, ordered reinstatement without back wages. The Management, being aggrieved, preferred W.P. No. 18134 of 1994.
4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order directing the Management to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to each of the respondents-workmen in lieu of the reinstatement. Insofar as the 6th respondent is concerned, since he was dead, the amount was directed to be payable to the legal representatives of the 6th respondent.
5. Heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and the respondents.
6. A grave charge of theft of the property by the respondents belonging to the Management is made out and the same is proved. It is only on the question of punishment, a lenient view is taken by the Tribunal and as well by the learned Single Judge. However, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Basudeo Chaudhary and Another, reads thus:
'Having regard to the findings that have been recorded by the Labour Court, it is evident that this is a case where the petitioner had tried to fabricate the record regarding recovery of fare to show that the passengers had travelled for a lesser distance from Khalilabad to Gorakhpur although they had actually travelled from Basti to Gorakhpur. The misconduct that was found established was thus serious in nature and the Labour Court has rightly upheld the punishment of removal from service that was imposed on the petitioner. The High Court was in error in interfering with the award of the Labour Court and in substituting the penalty of censure for removal from service on the view that there was only an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65 to the Corporation and the action of the Corporation terminating the services of the petitioner was justified'.
'The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Bhagat Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh , and Gulzar Singh v State of Punjab and has submitted that in the facts of this case the High Court was right in taking the view that the penalty of termination of services was disproportionate to the misconduct found established. We are unable to agree. The facts in the cases aforementioned were very different and they can have no application to the present case. Having regard to the misconduct that has been found established against the petitioner, it is not possible to say that the Corporation, in removing the petitioner from service, has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to the misconduct. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the judgment of the High Court'.
In the instant case, the allegation made against the respondent is, committing theft of the property of the Management which is a very heinous act. Under the circumstances, taking any lenient view in the matter would cause damage to the discipline in the Industry. Any lenient view in the matter and showing sympathy to the delinquent workmen who are found to be guilty of theft and fraud would amount to misplacing the sympathies. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a stringent view has to be taken against the delinquent workmen and any leniency in the matter of punishment is not warranted.
Under the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Industrial Tribunal are set aside.
The appeals are allowed accordingly.