M/S. L&T KOMATSU LID. versus N. UDAYAKUMAR

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 03-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS. L&T KOMATSU LID. 
V. 
N. UDAY AK.UMAR 
DECEMBER 3, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss.10 (4A) as introduced by State 
of Karnataka) and 11 A-Dismissal from service-By management 
C Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings-On the charge of absence from 
duty-Industrial dispute-Courts below upholding the charge, but 
reducing the punishment-On appeal, held: In view of the fact that 
workman was habitual absentee from duty, punishment of dismissal 
justified-Interference by courts below with the quantum of 
D punishment not correct. 
Respondent-workman was dismissed from service by appellant-
Management, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings on the charge 
of unauthorized absence from duty. Industrial dispute was raised. 
Labour Court though concurred with the finding of unauthorized 
E absence of workman, but found the punishment disproportionate to 
the gravity of the charge. It directed his reinstatement with continuity 
of service, but without back wages. It awarded punishment of 
stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. In Writ Petition, 
Single Judge of High Court modified the award, directing 
F reinstatement without continuity of service. Management as well as 
workman filed writ appeals. Division Bench of High Court dismissed 
the appeal of management It allowed that of the workman upholding 
the order of Labour Court. 
G 
In appeal, to this Court management contended that habitual 
absentism was gross violation of discipline; and that the punishment 
was reduced without keeping in view the parameters for the exercise 
of jurisdiction u/s. llA oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
820 
i 
L&TKOMATSULTD.v.N.UDAYAKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.] 821 
HELD: In the factual background, and in the light of principles A 
that habitual absentism means the gross violation of discipline and 
that discretion to interference with quantum of punishment awarded 
by management is available only on the existence of certain factors 
like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct 
so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any B 
mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, 
or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour 
Court to reduce the punishment, (ii) the inevitable conclusion is that 
the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in directing 
the reinstatement by interference with the order of termination. The C 
Order of termination as passed by the concerned authority stands 
restored. [Paras 7, 9and11] [823-G; 825-G; 826-A, B; 829-B-C) 
Mis. Burn and Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Ors., AIR (1959) 
SC 529; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dhandapani, AIR 
(2006) SC 615; Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. NB. Narawade, [2005] D 
3 SCC 134 and MP. Electricity Boardv. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, 
[2005] 3 sec 401, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3852 of 
2006. 
From the final Judgmnet and Order dated 10.8.2005 of the High 
Court ofKamataka at Bangalore in W.A. Nos. 2449 and 2722/2005 
(L-TER). 
E 
Sudhir Chandra, Bharat Sangal, R.R. Kumar, S. Chatterjee, P. Das 
F 
and Bhagabati Prasad for the Appellant. 
S. Nanda Kumar, Satish Kumar, G. Ananda Selvam and V.N. 
Raghupathy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. I.Challenge in this appeal is to the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court 
allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to 
as the 'workman')while dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant. 
G 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Undisputed background facts are as follows: 
Respondent had been working as an employee with Mis. L&T 
Komatsu Ltd., Bangalore. He remained absent unauthorisedly for 105 
days between 1.8.2000 and 30.4.200 I. Disciplinary proceedings were 
B initiated against him and a regular departmental enquiry was held. It is 
common case of the parties that the charge of unauthorized absence was 
proved in the said enquiry which has been found to be fair and proper 
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry report 
was accepted by the management and the respondent was dismissed from 
C service. This dismissal gave rise to an industrial dispute and the workman 
filed an application under Sub-section (4A) of Section 10 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.