Judgment:
S.R. Bannurmath, J.
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.6037/2003 dismissing the writ petition and upholding the award passed by the Labour Court dated 11.4.2001 in IDA. No.60/97.
2. The appellant was working as a time keeper. In the year 1996, finding that there were manipulations of the punch card and the attendance register by altering the 'L' mark indicating the presence in respect of 30 employees which had resulted in loss to the tune of Rs. 6,827/- to (he Corporation. Article of charges were framed, enquiry was held and the disciplinary authority accepting the enquiry report, by an order dated 24.5.1997 ordered penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant raised industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the 'Act').
3. The Labour Court, considering the material before it, including the evidence of the appellant and the management and the records produced as already noted, by the order dated 11.4.2001 held that the order of dismissal is just and proper. The Labour Court refused to invoke the provisions under Section 11-A of the Act taking into consideration the past conduct of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the learned single Judge on reconsideration of the entire material, affirmed the order of dismissal. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.
4. Sri. Subba Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the findings of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge that there is admission by the appellant of manipulating or correcting the punch card and the attendance register is incorrect. It is stated that no doubt, the appellant has stated that the said corrections were in his handwriting but he had done so on the basis of oral instructions at the instance of his superior officers. It is stated that non-examination by the management of the said superior officers is fatal to the Management's case. It is also stated that even though there was enquiry against the superior officer of the appellant, so far as no action has been taken against him indicates that it is the management which wants to pick and chose the appellant alone to victimise him for the crime which he did not commit. It is also stated that as the appellant had worked for nearly 30 years, some terminal benefits ought to have been granted by the Courts and non-grant of the same, has resulted in injustice.
5. It is to be noted that the fact that the appellant had admitted, the alterations cannot be disputed. May be it is qualified by giving reason. In the present case, it is stated that the said corrections were made at the instance of someone else, namely, the superior officer. But who this superior officer is also not stated by the appellant. One could have understood that while still in service (during enquiry) the appellant was apprehending further action from management or superior officer if he disclosed the name for the fear of future resilient or vengeful action by the superior but as it is noted, by the time appellant deposed before the Court, he had already retired from the service and as such, there was no pressure or fear for him not to disclose the name of the superior officer who alleged to have induced him to commit such alterations or manipulations. Whether the alterations or manipulations were committed with or without the pressure, that does not count for considering whether it was misconduct or not.
6. Once the appellant admits that he did manipulate the panch card and the attendance register not in one stray case but in respect of nearly 30 workmen, naturally unless he comes out with the evidence, to justify the same, the misconduct remains as a misconduct.
7. The Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge have in detail considered this aspect and have rejected the plea of the appellant. Even after consideration of the entire material before us, we do not find that the learned single Judge or the Labour Court having committed any illegality or even perversity in appreciation of the evidence.
8. In so far as exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act is concerned, it is observed by the Apex Court in the case on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dhandapanv : (2006)ILLJ329SC at paragraphs 8 to 11 as under:
8. It is not necessary to go into in detail regarding the power exercisable under Section 11-A of the Act. The power under said Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. To support its conclusion the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, has to give reasons in support of its decision. The power has to be exercised judiciously and mere use of the words 'disproportionate' or grossly dis proportionate' by itself will not be sufficient.
9. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. See : Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikirishnan and Anr. : (1994)IILLJ888SC .
10. Though under Section 11-A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of punishment it has to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power is itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law.
11. The High Court found that the Industrial Tribunal had not indicated any reason to justify variations of the penalty imposed. Though learned Counsel for the respondent tried to justify the Award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have considered the case in its proper perspective, we do not find any substance in the plea. Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to workmen found by Labour Court/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal and the High Court, in this case, have found a pattern of defiance and proved misconduct on not one but on several occasions. The compassion which was shown by the Tribunal and unfortunately endorsed by learned Single Judge was fully misplaced.
9. As rightly observed by the Apex Court Expensive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.
10. In the present case, as observed by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge, this was not a stray incidence in the career of the appellant. It was noted that even on earlier occasions, similar manipulations were carried out by the appellant and even though the management at the earliest had dismissed him from service, nevertheless taking sympathetic view, he was reinstated. But in our view, this sympathetic approach to allow the appellant to correct his mistakes had no effect. He has again and again committed the same misconduct. And as such, as rightly observed by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge, he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. In view of our findings as noted above, we find that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal and as such, the same stands rejected