High Court Kerala High Court

M.Tharanathan Nair vs The Mundela Service Co-Operative … on 3 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.Tharanathan Nair vs The Mundela Service Co-Operative … on 3 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 426 of 2009()


1. M.THARANATHAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MUNDELA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
             J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J & V.GIRI, J.
                  -------------------------------
            W.A.NOS.426 & 475 OF 2009 ()
               -----------------------------------
         Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,Ag.CJ.

Appellant in W.A.No.426/2009 is the 1st respondent in

W.A.No.475/2009. While the appellant was working as an

Accountant in the Bank, he was suspended pending enquiry

for various charges. The charges levelled against him is that

his work as a Recovery Officer was not proper and he refused

to do the work allotted to him. In fact dereliction of duty was

the charge against him. There was no allegation of

misappropriation. Misconducts were proved in a properly

conducted domestic enquiry. He was compulsorily retired

from service. Issue regarding his compulsory retirement was

referred to the Labour Court. Labour Court found that

misconducts were proved and enquiry was conducted fairly

and properly. But however, Labour Court also analysed the

evidence adduced before it and found that the punishment

W.A.NOS.426 & 475 OF 2009

2

imposed was harsh. According to the Labour Court, there was

political differences between the management of the Society

and the workman and such political difference is the main

reason for imposing such a heavy punishment for misconducts

and dereliction of duty. Punishment of compulsory retirement

was set aside but he was not reinstated as an Accountant. He

was only reinstated as junior most senior clerk and he was not

given any backwages or increment in the period he was out of

service. He was compulsorily retired on 31.10.1993. Award

of the Labour court was on 29.11.2002. On the basis of the

award, he will lose nine years full backwages as well as his

promotional benefits. Following is the operative portion of

the Labour court award:

1. The Punishment of compulsory retirement
of the workman from service is set aside.

2. The management is directed to reinstate
the workman in service in the rank of the
junior most senior clerk.

3. The workman will not be entitled to any
backwages or increments during the period in
which he was kept out of service.

W.A.NOS.426 & 475 OF 2009

3

4. The workman will be deemed to have been
in continuous service without any break for
the purpose of computing his retirement
benefits.

Under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the case

of dismissal or discharge of duties, Labour court has got

power to interfere with the punishment and make appropriate

relief if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The

Labour court has considered the matter and found that for

misconducts, compulsory retirement or termination of service

is highly excessive. At the same time, it is also noted that he

has got political connections and he was a social worker.

Taking all these relevant circumstances and nature of gravity

of misconducts, the relief was granted. The Labour court

has got power to reinstate the appellant with backwages. The

power exercised by the Labour court is within its jurisdiction.

In the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent error

apparent on the face of the record, the learned Singe Judge

upheld the award rejecting the attack made by the

management as well as the workmen. On going through the

award, we fully agree with the learned Single Judge that the

W.A.NOS.426 & 475 OF 2009

4

Labour Court has exercised jurisdiction correctly. No

grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned judgment.

We are not repeating the reasoning given by the learned

Single Judge as we fully agree with the views of the learned

Single Judge. Hence both writ appeals are dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

V.GIRI
JUDGE

prp

J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.

——————————————————–

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

6th November, 2008