LexU.B. GADHE AND ORS. ETC. ETC versus G.M. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ A U.B. GADHE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. G.M. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT PVT. LTD. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 B [DR. ARIJITP ASAY AT AND LOKESHW AR SING HP ANTA,JJ.) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: -( ·'1' c s. I IA-Jurisdiction of Labour Court to give relief-Scope- Workmen went on strike-Dismissed by employer-labour Court held that the strike was not justified however, directed the workmen to be re-instated without back wages-Correctness of-Held, not correct- Having found that the workmen had proceeded on illegal strike, D Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment especially when the employer was engaged in public utility service and the strike prolonged for a period of four to five months. _-4 '- Respondent-employer is engaged in public utility senice. Pursuan~ E to certain dispute, Appellants-workmen, went on strike for a period of 5 months. Disciplinary action was initiated and the Appellants were dismissed from senice. Labour Court held that the Appellants were not justified in going on strike, however, it held that for such misconduct, punishment of withholdingofbackwages would be sufficient Aa:ordingly, the Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Appellants .>,,. F to be re-instead in service with continuity but without back wages. High Court held that once the charges had been proved against the Appellants, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of puni~hment imposed by Respondent-employer. G In appeal to this Court, the primary contention made was that the parameters of s. HA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 bad not been y considered by the High Court while setting aside the order of the Labour Court. H 452 ~ U.B. GADHE v. G.M. GUJARAT AMBUJA 453 CEMENT PVT. LTD. Disposing of the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. When the Labour Court found that the workmen had proceeded on illegal strike and that they were leading participants in such a strike, the Labour Court ought not to the have interfered with the quantum of punishment especially when it was established that the B employer is engaged in Public Utility service and that the strike prolonged for a period of four to five months. Even in the absence of , ~ any further proof of involvement of the workmen for other misconduct of unruly behaviour, abusing superiors officers, preventing officers from entering the premises, preventing co-workers from resuming duties and c threatening the family members of the workmen and collecting union subscription illegally, it is doubtful whether the Labour Court could have reduced the punishment and substituted the order of dismissal oflessar punishment. [Para 14] [460-E,F,G] Mill Manager, Model Mills Nagpur Ltd v. Dharam Das, Etc., AIR D ..l (1958) SC 311, relied on • ../ 2.1. The High court had not considered the case in the background ofSection 11-AofthelndustrialDisputesAct, 1947. Under Section 11- A wide discretion had been vested in the Tribunal in the matter of E awarding relief according to the circumstances of the case, whereas in the writ jurisdiction it is extremely limited. [Para 17] [461-E, F] ..,...4.., 2.2. The power under said Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case F may be, is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. To support its conclusion, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may G• ~ be, has to give reasons in support of its decision. The power has to be exercised judiciously and mere use of the words 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportinate' by itself will not be sufficient. [Para 18] [461-F, G; 462-A] H 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A 2.3. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that B the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolenc. It is essential to maintain the integrity oflegal reasoning and the legi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.