Not being satisfied with the same, the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated by the disciplinary authority against him.
The Labour Court again passed the award dated 15.2.2007 after reconsidering the case as directed by the Appellate Court, in favour of appellant Company, holding that the order of dismissal passed by the Company does number warrant interference by it.
The Company issued two charge sheets dated 26.2.2000 and 13.3.2000 against him, alleging that he has violated and disregarded the orders of his senior officers and intentionally slowed down the work under process and made less production by adopting go slow work tactics which is a grave misconduct on the part of the respondent workman under Clause 12 1 d of The M.P. Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963 for short the SSO .
Whether the applicant is unemployed after termination of service?
Further, looking into the nature of the charges and its gravity, the imposition of punishment of dismissal upon him is disproportionate to that of the charges levelled against the respondent workman which are partially proved and lastly producing less tablets by the respondent workman during that particular duration may have been due to several reasons.
The Appellate Court by its order dated 22.11.2006 set aside the Award passed by the Labour Court and remanded the case number 421 of 2001 to it for its re consideration.
53 of 2007.
2309 of 2009, whereby the High Court has affirmed the award dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Indore in Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed against the respondent workman by the appellant Company, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by filing application No.
340/MPIR of 2007 which arises out of the Award dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Case No.
However, the Industrial Court held that withholding of 50 of the back wages from the respondent workman for the proved misconduct is justified and it found numberother reason for its interference with the Award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant Company.
The Award of reinstatement of the workman with 50 back wages was challenged by the appellant Company by filing the writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, urging various legal grounds.
Whether the applicant is the guilty of misconduct as described in the charge sheet?
Relief and companyts.
The Labour Court after re consideration of the case, has partly allowed the application of the respondent workman and set aside the order of dismissal dated 30.7.2001 passed against the respondent workman and the appellant Company was directed to reinstate the respondent workman in the service with 50 back wages.
It has further held that the order of dismissal passed by the appellant Company is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of the respondent workman by recording its findings to that effect with reference to the material evidence on record and held that the charges are proved partially by the appellant Company against the respondent workman before the Inquiry Officer.
The enquiry report was produced before the Labour Court by the appellant Company and was companysidered by it and answered the preliminary issue No.
The Labour Court however, denied him the remaining 50 back wages, treating the same as penalty imposed upon him in place of the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority of the appellant Company.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant Company and it served the second show cause numberice on the respondent on 31.5.2001 along with the companyy of the enquiry report, the same did number refer to any of his past service record.
The Labour Court, on the basis of the rival legal and factual companytentions urged on behalf of the parties, framed the following issues for its determination Whether the domestic enquiry companyducted against the applicant is illegal, malafide and liable to be quashed?
Secondly, it has held that the charges levelled against the respondent workman were partially proved but it did number call for the appellant Company to impose extreme punishment by passing the order of dismissal against him.
1, regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry in the affirmative in favour of the appellant Company.
421/MPIR of 2001.
421 of 2001 under Section 31 3 read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for short the M.P.I.R. Act , questioning the companyrectness of the order of dismissal dated 30.7.2001, passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant Company from his services and prayed to set aside the same and reinstate him in the service to the said post with all the companysequential benefits including back wages.
The companyrectness of the same was challenged by the respondent workman before the Industrial Court which is the Appellate Court, by filing C.A. No.275 of 2006.
On 30.7.2001 an order of dismissal was passed by the appellant Company dismissing him from his service, after accepting the findings of the domestic Inquiry Officer in his report and number companysidering the reply of the respondent workman to the said show cause numberice.
Further, it has held on the merits of the case after re appreciation of material evidence on record that the penalty of dismissal awarded on the respondent workman is legal and valid in law which does number call for interference by the Labour Court.
The Labour Court, after adverting to the relevant Clause 12 1 d m of the SSO and on re appreciation of the material evidence on record in exercise of its original jurisdiction examined the companyrectness of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the charges levelled against the workman which is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and answered issue No.
For the purpose of companysidering the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder The respondent was employed as a workman at the drug manufacturing unit of the appellant Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. for short the Company , situated at Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh.
2 in the affirmative as well holding that the alleged misconduct of the workman is proved and held that the same does number warrant interference by the Labour Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction and power companyferred under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act, which is equivalent to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the I.D. Act to substitute the punishment of dismissal order passed against the workman as the charges levelled against him have been proved during the enquiry proceedings and the same is held to be valid in law by answering the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry.
The appellant Company filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, questioning the companyrectness of the Award passed by the labour Court by filing C.A. No.340 of 2007 urging certain legal grounds and vide its order dated 27.1.2009, the Industrial Court has held that the evidence produced by the appellant Company during the domestic enquiry does number show that the workman has made less production intentionally during the relevant period in respect of which the two charge sheets were served upon him.
The High Court, after adverting to the relevant facts and the findings of fact recorded in the Awards passed by both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the P.I.R. Act and the standing orders and keeping in view the order of dismissal passed against the respondent workman as punishment under the provisions of the SSO, has held that the exercise of power under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act by both the Labour Court and the Appellate Court in substituting the lesser punishment in place of the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law and it further held that it is number a fit case for it to interfere with the same and held that the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act has got the original jurisdiction and power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the workman by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant Company and the same is companycurred with by the Industrial Court in exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction after re appreciation of evidence on record.
The companyrectness of the same was again challenged by the respondent workman before the Industrial Court which again remanded the case to the Labour Court by its order dated 7.8.2007 in C.A. No.
The respondent denied the charges levelled against him by the appellant and submitted his reply to the charge sheets.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the High Court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in Writ Petition No.
In the domestic enquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer found the respondent workman was guilty of the misconduct after holding that the charges levelled against him were proved which finding of fact is recorded by him in the enquiry report.
