Jharkhand HC Upholds Labour Court's Power To Modify Punishment Even After Fair Enquiry, Grants Full Back Wages To Deceased Workman's Heirs

The Jharkhand High Court has held that even where a domestic enquiry is found to be fair and proper, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is not barred from examining whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate, and may mould the relief under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a writ petition filed by the management seeking to quash a Labour Court award dated 15.01.2008 in Reference Case No. 14 of 1988, which had set aside the discharge of the respondent-workman and directed reinstatement with 40% back wages and consequential benefits, further holding that he would be deemed to be in continuous service.Facts:The original respondent-workman, C.K. Singh (since deceased during the pendency of the proceedings), had been working with the petitioner-company since 14.07.1969, initially as an unskilled Mate, later made permanent and designated as Motor Mechanic in the Auto Transport Department. In February 1983, he underwent surgery at TELCO Hospital. According to the workman, one stitch was left behind, resulting in severe pain and infection. When he approached the treating doctor on 22.02.1983 seeking admission, the doctor allegedly refused, following which the workman, in pain, raised his voice and protested. Shortly thereafter, the doctor made a complaint to the management alleging filthy language and threats.Based on this complaint, the workman was chargesheeted on 16.03.1983 for misconduct including disorderly/indecent behaviour and threatening or intimidating an employee within the work premises. A departmental enquiry culminated in findings of guilt and the workman's discharge from service with effect from 18.06.1984.Labour Court Award: The Labour Court ultimately interfered with the punishment, set aside the order of discharge, and directed reinstatement with 40% back wages and consequential benefits, also holding the workman to be in continuous service.Before the High Court: The management contended that the workman had used filthy language and threatened the doctor, and argued that the Labour Court could not sit as an appellate authority to substitute its own assessment for that of the disciplinary authority. The respondent opposed the writ petition, submitting that the Labour Court had, on due appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances, rightly found the discharge illegal/unjustified and the punishment disproportionate.High Court's Reasoning:The High Court reiterated that the law post-insertion of Section 11A permits the Labour Court/Tribunal to go beyond examining the fairness of the enquiry and to consider proportionality of punishment. Relying on Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. (1973) 1 SCC 813, the Court noted that the industrial adjudicator is empowered to examine whether the punishment is justified and to mould relief, including by awarding a lesser punishment.The Court further referred to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005) 3 SCC 134, which lays down the “triple test” for exercise of discretion under Section 11A: (i) whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges; (ii) whether mitigating circumstances exist requiring reduced punishment; and (iii) the past record of the workman. Applying these principles, the High Court held that the present case squarely met the “mitigating circumstances” test. The Court noted: “He was treated in the hospital of his employer and suffered acute pain in his scrotum due to septic infection caused by unremoved stitch which constitutes medical negligence. The workman allegedly used foul words in a state of pain and when he was asked to leave and visit again the following day. Even otherwise, there is a finding of perversity in enquiry on page 14 of the award. Dr. N.G. Das (complainant) and Dr. D.N. Singh have given completely two different versions of the incident. The alleged words mentioned by Dr. Das are not corroborated by Dr. D.N. Singh who does not support allegation of use of expletives…Furthermore, it would be normal for any patient to protest and express displeasure when he suffers pain caused by septic infection post-surgery due to an unremoved stitch. It is also undisputed that instead of treating him, the doctor turned him away and instructed him to visit again leaving him in pain and suffering”Noting the suffering undergone by the family of the deceased workman, the Court took into account the prolonged litigation and its consequences on his dependents. The Court observed:“The workman died and his legal heirs are pursuing this litigation. The Labour Court has also inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments. The family of the deceased workman has suffered immensely. Had it been the case of a senior level employee, the doctors would have been punished and the patient would become entitled to receive compensation for medical negligence. It is rather unfortunate that the workman not only suffered excruciating...

Jharkhand HC Upholds Labour Court's Power To Modify Punishment Even After Fair Enquiry, Grants Full Back Wages To Deceased Workman's Heirs

Rushil Batra

Tags