“8. If these principles are kept in mind, then the second respondent Labour Court would not have committed grave error in allowing the parties to lead evidence inspite of a joint memo having been filed by both parties stating that they are not questioning the validity of the enquiry. Then the Labour Court, under these circumstances, ought to have confined itself only to decide the finding rendered by the employer as it is just and proper and if the misconduct is proved still, shall decide the question of quantum of punishment imposed on the workman. On the contrary, the Labour Court held that denial of subsistence allowance will vitiate the enquiry. This was inspite of the earlier docket order made by the predecessor of the second respondent on 30.5.2000. This conduct of the Labour Court is wholly unwarranted and the Labour Court cannot go behind the endorsement made by the parties. However, when the matter was brought before the learned Judge by both parties, they have not brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 11A of the I.D. Act which led the learned Judge to remand the matter only on the question of proportionality of the punishment to be decided by the Labour Court thereby restricting the power of the labour Court to go into the findings rendered by the employer in the domestic enquiry conducted by the first respondent Society. We cannot fetter the right of the labour Court to go into the findings rendered by the employer and to come to the conclusion in one way or the other and thereafter, decide the question of penalty to be imposed on the workman.
