Varadiyam Service Co-Operative … vs Industrial Tribunal on 10 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19168 of 2005(F)


1. VARADIYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs


1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :10/06/2008

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.19168 OF 2005
               ----------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.101/2002

before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. They are challenging

Ext.P2 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue

referred for adjudication was,

“Whether the dismissal of Sri. P.L. Sebastian,
Salesman, is justifiable? If not what are the reliefs
entitled to him?”

Since the dismissal of the workman was after having been found

guilty in an enquiry conducted for that purpose, the Tribunal first

considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and

found that the enquiry was valid and proper. However,

exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, the Tribunal converted the punishment of dismissal into one

of discharge. That interference with the punishment is under

challenge at the instance of the management in this writ petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the

misconduct proved against the workman involved

W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 2

misappropriation of funds and falsification of records which are

very serious misconducts warranting punishment of dismissal.

He would argue that the Labour Court and this Court can

interfere with punishments imposed by the management only

in cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate

to the gravity of the misconducts. He would submit that for

misconducts of misappropriation and falsification of records the

punishment of dismissal cannot by any stretch of imagination

be considered as shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

misconducts. The counsel for the petitioner would also submit

that the reason stated for interfering with the punishment, that

the past service of the workman was blemishless, is not

correct. He also relies on the Supreme Court decision in

JANATHA BAZAR (SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE

SAHAKARI NOUKARARA SANGHA AND OTHERS [2000(7)

SCC 517].

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perhaps in a more appropriate case, I would have considered

the contentions of the petitioner in detail. But here, the

Industrial Tribunal has exercised its discretion vested in him

W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 3

under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act giving specific

reasons which cannot be stated to be perverse. I am not

inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of

the petitioner to upset that finding of the Industrial Tribunal.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(C)NO.19168/08 4