Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2313/2010 3/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2313 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13244 of 2008
=========================================================
RAMUJAGAR
RAMSURI - Appellant(s)
Versus
ECHJAY
INDUSTIRES LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 08/10/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
By
this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed on 10.8.2010
in Special Civil Application No.13244 of 2008 dismissing the
petition. The said petition arose out of a judgment and award
rendered by the Labour Court, Rajkot on 8.4.2008 in Reference (LCR)
No.102 of 1995.
2. The
appellant was working with the respondent-Company as a Helper. He was
charged for the misconduct of having attacked the security staff.
Departmental proceedings were initiated and the Inquiry Officer found
him guilty to the extent of being part of the crowd, which attacked
the security officers. Before the Labour Court, the challenge was to
the finding and the quantum of punishment. The Labour Court dismissed
the Reference. The said award was, therefore, challenged before the
learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge also dismissed the
petition and, hence, this appeal.
3. The
learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Labour Court
has not assigned any reason for dismissing the Reference on merits.
He submitted further that the punishment of dismissal is grossly
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The appellant is a
workman and the incident occurred in the premises of the factory and,
therefore, his presence is necessary and unless any overt act is
proved, he could have been mistaken as a part of the crowd and,
therefore, the finding that he has committed misconduct is erroneous
and even if this is not accepted, the punishment of dismissal is too
harsh when no overt act is proved against him.
4. Having
considered the submissions made before us, we have noticed that the
incident occurred around midnight when the security staff of the
respondent was attacked by a crowd. Before the Labour Court, the
appellant has examined witness to depose that when the witness was
passing by the place of incident, he noticed that the security staff
was assaulting the workman. The appellant-workman does not deny his
presence. He does not explain his presence at the wee hours in the
factory. The version about the incident has not culminated into any
criminal prosecution at the behest of either side and, therefore,
there was no independent investigation of the incident. When the
workman does not deny his presence, his explanation can reasonably be
expected about his presence in the factory at odd hours. He was part
of the crowd which attacked the security staff, though actual
physical overt act may not have been properly proved. In this set of
circumstances, if the employer has taken the decision to dismiss the
appellant from service and the Courts below have found it proper not
to interfere with the punishment on the ground of the same being
grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, in our view, the
appellate jurisdiction is not required to be exercised. There are two
concurrent findings, both on fact as well as on the quantum of
punishment and we would, therefore, not interfere with the order
impugned.
6. Learned
advocate for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of
Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. vs.
The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227, wherein it has been held that the
Labour Court has, under Section 11-A, powers to interfere with the
quantum of punishment, if it is found to be disproportionate even
where the Court does not interfere with the involvement of the
workman in the misconduct.
7. There
cannot be any dispute on the principle, but where the Court finds
that no interference is called for in the quantum of punishment, the
Court cannot be compelled to exercise its jurisdiction. The judgment,
therefore, cannot help the appellant.
8. The
appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(M.D.
SHAH, J.)
zgs/-
Top