LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA AND ORS. MARCH 15, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Labour Law.: Industrial Disputf!S Act, 1947: s.11-A-Punishment of removal I dis- missal-Power of Lab~ur Court to give appropriate relief ~f punishment is found not justified-Held, Labour Court has discretion to award a lesser punishment-This power is also available with High Court exercising jurisdic- tion under Article 226 of the Constitution, if punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate-However,, in the instant case, the charge against the delin- . quent was of a seiious nature and the Labour Court having found that there was no infi.rmity in conducting departmental inquiry, should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment-High Court also failed to exercise its juris- diction under Article 226 in not correcting erroneous order of Labour Court- Constitution of India-Article 226-Service Law-Removal from service. A departmental inquiry was held against respondent No. 1, who was working as a bus driver in the appellant-Corporation, on the charges that he remained absent from duty; that he unauthorisedly took the bus to a different place lea~ing the conductor; and that he went in the cash room in - ..... ,~. a drunken stWl:e, demanded money from the Assistant Cashier and when -·.. \ ....... the latter refused the respondent threatened to assault him. The inquiry officer found that the first two charges were not established but the third charge was fully established, which led to removal of the respondent from service. On an industrial dispute having been raised by the respondent, a reference was made to the Labour Court which held that the departmental inquiry did not suffer from any infirmity. However, it found the punish- ment of removal to be excessive, and substituted the punishment by stop- page of one wage increment and ordered payment of 50% back wages. The Corporation challenged the award in a writ petition before the High Court which dismissed the petition summarily. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present appeal. A B c D E F G It was contended for the appellant-Corporation that once the Labour H 451 A B c D E F 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. Court found that the departmental inquiry conducted against the delin- quent was proper and did not suffer from any infirmity, it should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment; and that the High Court should have set aside the award and maintained the order of removal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vests the Labour Court with discretion to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman into an order of reinstatement· of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu . of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. This power is also available to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion, (hough it is qualified with a limitation that while seized with this question as a writ court, interference is permissible only when the punish- ment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate. [455-F, 454-F] Union of India & Anr. v. B. C. Chaturvedi, [1995] 6 SCC 750; Colour- Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 192 and Hind Construc- tion & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR (1965) SC 917 = [1965] 2 SCR 85 = (1965) 1 LLJ 462, relied on. 1.2. However, in the instant case the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service when the charge against him stood proved. The charge against the re- spondent was that he, in drunken state, along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent. The discretion exer- cised by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified. [456-B] G 1.3. The High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.