Management of Indian Institute of Management, (rep. by its Chief Administrative Officer) Vs. D. Manikya In the High Court of Karnataka.

Hon'ble Judges: N. Kumar and Arali Nagaraj, JJ. Facts The workman (D. Manikya) was working as a plumber in Indian Institute of Management. He was served with a charge sheet on September 10, 1991, Three charges of misconduct were framed against him. Enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the misconduct in respect of the charges is proved. Acting on the said report, the management dismissed the workmen from service. Aggrieved by the same, workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. He contended that domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and challenged the order on merits. On Preliminary issue regarding domestic enquiry, Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. However opportunity was given for the management to prove the charge. On adducing oral and documentary evidence, only the 3rd charge was proved. Thereafter Labour Court exercised power under Section 11(A) of the Act and held that the punishment of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct established and therefore it set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. As a punishment what was imposed is denial of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date he was ordered to pay interim relief. Aggrieved by the said order of Labour Court both the management and the workmen preferred two writ petitions before the Honble Court. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order holding that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on charge No. 3 was supported by legal evidence, therefore no case for interference was made out. Similarly High Court with regard to the findings of Labour Court held that punishment is shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned single Judge both the management and as well as workmen filed the appeals: Writ Appeal 2457/2010 and Writ Appeal 379/2010.

1. Issue (s): Whether the order of reinstatement as issued by the Labour Court inappropriate considering the misconduct and rude behaviour with official/superior? Once misconduct is proved and Labour Court exercised power under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directs reinstatement and reinstatement being a lesser punishment, what is the punishment to be imposed to the proved misconduct?

2.

Provisions of Act:

Section 10(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. KARNATAKA In section 10, after sub-section(4), the following sub-section shall be inserted namely:(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9C and in this section, in the case of dispute falling within the scope of section 2A, the industrial workman concerned may, within sex months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 whichever is later, apply in the prescribed manner to the labour court for the adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section (1). Section 11A. Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National tribunal for adjudication and; in the course of adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require : Provided that in any proceedings under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. 3. Case law

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agarwal and Another 2007 SCC 433 : 2007 II LLJ 128 4. Discussion

The Honble court has rightly upheld the order or reinstatement, as for an employee, dismissal from service should be the punishment of last resort. No doubt, that misconduct and rude behaviour with official/superior is an serious issue, but, what could be proved is the 3rd charge of nonsubordination. So, withholding of two annual increments was an appropriate punishment for the employee. 5. Decision

Punishment of withholding of two annual increments cumulatively was imposed. To that extent the order passed by the Labour Court as well as learned single Judge was modified. Hence in the order Writ Appeal 2457/2010 was dismissed and Writ Appeal 379/2010 was partly allowed imposing punishment of withholding of two increments cumulatively.