SC: Litigant Can't be Expected to Wait Indefinitely for Reasons  ||  SC: Suit is Liable to be Dismissed if Necessary Party is Not Impleaded  ||  Del HC: Recovery of Annual Report & Share Cert. from Assessee's Premises Not Incriminating Documents  ||  Delhi HC: No PMLA Proceedings After Quashing of FIR Against Accused  ||  Kerala HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL to Include 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia' as Rare Disease  ||  P&H HC: Every Adult has Right to Live With Person of Choice  ||  Kerala HC: Whether Suit Falls Under Section 92 of CPC Has to be Decided Before Trial  ||  All. HC: Only Governor Can Take Action if Govt Servant Found Guilty of Misconduct After Retirement  ||  Bombay HC: Daughter Making Monetary Demand from Father Not Meant to Abet His Suicide  ||  SC Rejects Uddhav Group's Plea to Stop EC from Deciding Shinde's Claim as Real Shiv Sena    

Bank Of India vs. Suresh Chand - (High Court of Delhi) (12 Sep 2022)

Tribunal has power under Section 11A of ID Act to interfere with the punishment inflicted on an employee by the Management

MANU/DE/3492/2022

Service

The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is aggrieved by the Award passed by the Presiding Officer. Vide the impugned Award, the learned Industrial Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits after stopping all increments for 7 years.

The question to be examined is whether the Industrial Tribunal has power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment inflicted on an employee by the Management.

After the introduction of Section 11A, now the Industrial Tribunal have the power to interfere with the punishments. However, cogent reasons should be recorded for the same. In the present case, the Learned Tribunal in the impugned Award noted that there were 7 employees against whom identical charges were imposed. In all cases, charges were proved. Out of the 7 Workmen on whom similar charges were proved, 5 of them were retained in service by imposing the penalty of reduction in increments. One person was dismissed from service and the Respondent Workman was discharged from service with superannuation benefits. Hence according to the Learned Tribunal, there is discrimination as there was no justification offered by Petitioner/Management on how the Respondent/Workman's case is different from the other similarly situated employees against whom lesser punishments were imposed.

The learned Tribunal interfered with the penalty imposed by the Petitioner/Management as the Respondent/Workman was discriminated against similarly situated employees. The learned Tribunal has the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Petitioner/Management.

There is no infirmity or perversity in the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Tags : REINSTATEMENT   WORKMAN   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2022 - All Rights Reserved