Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s decision, which had ordered a fresh trial concerning the proportionality of punishment given to the petitioner. The Court held that the Industrial Court failed to consider the legal principles regarding the evidence on record. It directed the Industrial Court to reconsider the case based on the existing materials without allowing fresh evidence.
Facts:
The petitioner, a former employee, was dismissed from service after an incident in the factory where workers protested following a workplace injury. The Labour Court found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offense, which allegedly caused a loss of approximately ₹2.60 crores. The petitioner, along with three other workers, was charged with instigating the protest. While the other workers received a suspension of four days, the petitioner was dismissed.
Issues:
The central issue was whether the dismissal of the petitioner, compared to the lesser punishment given to co-workers for similar actions, constituted victimization and whether the punishment was disproportionately harsh.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the charges against him were the same as those against his co-workers, and thus, there should not have been any disparity in the punishment. He further asserted that his service record was clean, and the evidence led before the Labour Court did not prove otherwise. The petitioner claimed that his dismissal was a result of victimization by the employer.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent maintained that the petitioner’s conduct was more grievous compared to the other workers as he was the prime instigator. They contended that the Labour Court erred in examining the proportionality of the punishment under the relevant labor laws because the misconduct was not minor or technical.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court referred to various legal precedents concerning the “doctrine of proportionality” and the powers vested in the Labour and Industrial Courts under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It noted that the Industrial Court is bound to decide based on the evidence on record and cannot reopen the case for new evidence unless absolutely necessary.
Precedent Analysis:
Key judgments, such as Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar and Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar, were referenced. The Court reaffirmed the principle that employees with similar charges should receive similar punishments unless there is a justified reason for disparity, which must be proved through existing evidence.
Court’s Reasoning:
The High Court reasoned that the Industrial Court had wrongly remanded the case for fresh evidence. It emphasized that once the Labour Court had made findings based on the available record, the Industrial Court should have reviewed the case within that framework rather than allowing the introduction of new evidence.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the Industrial Court’s order for a fresh trial, directing it to decide the case based on the materials already on record. The Court also reinstated the Labour Court’s finding that the dismissal of the petitioner was disproportionate and amounted to unfair labor practice.
Implications:
This ruling highlights the limitations on the Industrial Court’s powers to remand cases for fresh evidence when a thorough inquiry has already been conducted. It also reinforces the principle that employees facing similar charges must be treated equally, and disproportionate punishment can be challenged as victimization under labor laws.
Pingback: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Upholds 'Pay-When-Paid' Clause, Stating NBCC's Liability for Outstanding Payments Contingent on NSG's Payment - Raw Law