Allowed

The Management of Ms R S B Transmissions I Ltd. through Sri Pranotosh Bhattacherjee Vice President v. Labour

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2019WPC/5842/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash a Labour Award that reinstated a workman discharged for theft. Citing precedents, the Court held that discharge for theft is proportionate punishment, and interference declaring it harsh is unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 20.07.2012 pronouncing the Labour Court order in Reference Case No. 8/2005 is quashed.

The Management of Ms R S B Transmissions I… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

W.P. (L) No.5842 of 2012

¶2

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶3

The Management of M/s R.S.B. Transmissions (I) Ltd, having its registered office at GAT # 908, Sanaswadi, Nagar Road, Shirur, (Taluka), Dist-Pune-412208, Maharashtra and its factory at N.S.25, 6^th Phase, P.O. & P.S. Gamharia, Jamshedpur Town, DistrictSinghbhum East-832008, through Sri Pranotosh Bhattacherjee, Associate Vice President (H.R.) …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

¶6

Their Workman Sri Raja Das resident of Holding No.600, Ward No.-5, Sanjay Nagar, Majhitala, Adityapur, SaraikelaKharsawan, PS Gamharia, District-East Singhbhum

¶7

…… Respondents

¶8

For the Petitioner :Mr.G.M.Mishra, Adv. Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent No.1 :Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-III ----PRESENT

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

By Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶11

In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent-workman.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 20.07.2012 pronounced on 16.08.2012 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.8/2005 whereby reference has been answered in favour of the workman directing the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman, namely, Mr. Raja Das in service of the company within three months of the award and further back wages has been denied to the workman.

¶13

It appears that the workman has been appointed in the company on 21.08.2000 and his designation was Machine Operator Trainee (VTC). For the incident of theft committed by the workman dated 22.01.2003, he has been charged vide memo of charge dated 30.01.2003. On culmination of domestic enquiry, charge has been proved and on such proved charge, the workman was discharged from service of the company by the management w.e.f. 09.05.2003.

¶14

The order of discharge has been challenged by raising industrial dispute, which has been referred as Reference Case No.8/2005.

¶15

Terms of reference is as follows:

¶16

“Whether the dismissal of workman Shri Raja Das on the allegation of theft or in situation of gross negligence by the management of M/s R.S.B. Transmission India Ltd; Gamharia is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

¶17

Domestic enquiry has been declared not fair and proper. Thereafter Tribunal has given opportunity to both the parties to justify the order of discharge.

¶18

Both the parties have laid their evidence and after considering the evidence, the said award has been passed in favour of the workman.

¶19

Concluding portion of the award reads as under:

¶20

Having regard the facts I am of opinion that management has been able to establish the fact that the workman Mr. Raja Das has committed misconduct of theft by concealing a new insert TMCT 090202 in his right pocket of his pant. But from the perusal of the seized insert and insert box Ext. M/E-1 & II it is apparent that the seized material is very very small component of the machine of cost of Rs.156/- only and this is first misconduct on the part of the concerned workman. And therefore, in my opinion, the punishment awarded to the workman by discharging him from the service of the company by management is harsh one and strikingly disproportionate and the discharge order of the workman is not justified and the same is, hereby, set-aside, and the workman is entitled to reinstate in his service of the company. Thus the management is directed to reinstate the workman, Mr. Raja Das in the service of the company within 3 months of the Award but without any back wages by way of punishment for his committed misconduct. Accordingly the present reference is, hereby, answered.

¶21

Thus, the factum of misconduct of theft stands proved but the Labour Court has found that the punishment of discharge is disproportionate to the misconduct.

¶22

Reference can be made to the judgment reported in 2005 3 SCC 254 in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vrs. A.t. Mane. Relevant para-12 and 13 of this judgment is quoted hereinunder:

¶23

12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. 13. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for

¶24

generosity or misplace sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment.

¶25

Thus, law is settled that the order of discharge is proportionate to the charge of theft. In the present case, the factum of theft has been recorded by the Labour Court on considering the evidence brought by the parties.

¶26

In view of the above finding of fact, interference in the order of punishment for charge of theft declaring disproportionate and ordering for reinstatement is not sustainable.

¶27

In view of above discussion and judicial pronouncement, the present writ petition stands allowed. Award dated 20.07.2012 is, hereby, quashed.

¶28

Pending I.A. also disposed of.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶30

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The Day of 21st of August, 2019 Shahid/N.A.F.R.

The Management of Ms R S B Transmissions I Ltd. through Sri Pranotosh Bhattacherjee Vice President v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Ms R S B Transmissions I Ltd. through Sri Pranotosh Bhattacherjee Vice President v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmad Safi Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Management of M/S.Jupiter Iron Vs State of Jharkhand

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery of M S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Dal Singhar Kohar

Rajesh Kr Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Employers in Relation to the Management of Simlabahal Colliery of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs Their Workmen Being Represented by the Secretary Janta Mazdoor Sangh

Kameshwar Singh And Ors. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.