Cygnet Industries Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5694 Cal

                                       1




21   17.11.2021                       FMA 692 of 2021
RP   Ct. No. 16
AN                                          with
                                    IA No. CAN 1 of 2021


                                   Cygnet Industries Ltd.
                                              vs.
                                 State of West Bengal & ors.


                  Mr. Soumya Majumdar
                  Mr. Malay Kr. Seal
                                                    ... for the appellant

                  Mr. Susanta Pal
                  Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar
                                                    ... for the State

                  Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharya
                  Mr. Balaram Patra
                                                   ... for respondent no. 4

Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2021

and the judgment dated 06.04.201 passed in WPA

4785/2021, the present appeal has been filed by the

appellant management. The impugned order in the writ

petition was the final award dated 19.02.2020 passed by

the learned First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in case

No. VIII-02/2011. The respondent workmen raised a

dispute regarding his dismissal before the Government

and the Government referred the dispute for adjudication

before the Industrial Tribunal. There were three charges

framed against the workmen one of which was charge of

dishonesty, secondly, causing of willful damage and loss

to the company's goods and thirdly, act of subversive of

discipline. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the

facts of the matter held that the domestic enquiry was

validly held by the management. Apart from that it also

held that the charge of willful damage or loss of the

company's goods and act subversive of discipline were

proved in the domestic enquiry. However, the Industrial

Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge of

dishonesty is not proved. Therefore, the workmen partially

succeeded before the Industrial Tribunal insofar as the

charge of dishonesty. Thus the question before the

Industrial Tribunal was as to what would be the

punishment which was required to be imposed on the

respondent workmen on the proven charge. The

Industrial Tribunal in the penultimate paragraph of the

impugned award held that the punishment of termination

of the respondent workmen was illegal, pre-mature,

absolutely arbitrary and unjustified and consequently,

directed the appellant management to pay full back wages

from the date of illegal termination with effect from

11.11.2009 till date of superannuation of respondent

workmen. This order was put to challenge before the

learned single Judge and the writ petition has been

dismissed. Aggrieved by such order passed by the learned

single Judge, the management has preferred this appeal

We have elaborately heard learned counsel for

the parties and perused the materials on record. We find

that Industrial Tribunal has committed a fundamental

error while exercising its power under Section 11(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. We say so because the Industrial

Tribunal having held that the domestic enquiry to be

valid and proper and having held that two of the three

charges having been proved obviously cannot annul the

punishment imposed by the management. Section 11(A)

of the Act deals with power of labour court, Industrial

Tribunal or National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in

case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. Such

provision says that where an Industrial dispute relating to

discharge or dismissal of workmen has been referred to a

labour court, tribunal or national tribunal for

adjudication and in course of adjudication proceedings

the labour court tribunal or national tribunal, as the case

may be, is satisfied that an order of discharge or dismissal

was not justified, it may pass award setting aside the

order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement

of workmen including the award of any lesser punishment

in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of

the case may require. In terms of Section 11(A), the first

and foremost requirement is the satisfaction of the

tribunal that the order of dismissal or discharge was not

justified. If it comes to such a conclusion, it can set aside

the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement with

certain terms and conditions and finally the tribunal has

got power to award lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal.

We find from the award passed by the Tribunal

that no such satisfaction has been arrived at. The

workmen cannot take a stand that the Industrial Tribunal

would be justified in directing the reinstatement with full

benefits though having upheld conclusion of the

management in respect of two of the charges and holding

the workmen guilty of those two charges. Therefore, at

best, if the Industrial Tribunal on being satisfied that the

order of discharge and dismissal was not justified in

respect of two of the three charges then it is improper to

give such relief to the workmen including awarding of

lesser punishment for which the facts and circumstances

of the case are required to be considered. It goes without

saying that the Industrial Tribunal should record as to

why the Industrial Tribunal seeks to substitute the

punishment and what would be the appropriate lesser

punishment.

It is a settled principle that interference with the

quantum of punishment of an industrial tribunal or

labour court is very limited and more so because the

domestic enquiry has been held to be valid and proper.

Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal cannot exercise any

compassion and pass an award. If it proceeds to exercise

its power under Section 11A and decides to award a lesser

punishment, it shall do so only after recording

satisfaction. Since we find no such satisfaction has been

recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, the direction issued

by the Industrial Tribunal setting aside order of

termination and ordered to pay full back wages from the

date of illegal termination with effect from 11.11.2009 till

the date of superannuation is not sustainable in law.

For the above reasons, we are inclined to

interfere to that extent so far as the interpretation given

by the learned single Judge to Section 11A of the Act.

Such question could not arise in the case in hand as it

appears to be an academic exercise done by the learned

single Judge. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the

order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and

consequently, portion of the award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal setting aside the order of termination

with a direction to pay full back wages from the date of

illegal termination with effect from 11.11.2009 till the date

of superannuation is not sustainable in law is set aside

and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal to

consider the issue regarding the quantum of punishment

that should be imposed on the workmen. The Industrial

Tribunal shall bear in mind that it is an award holding

that the respondent workmen is guilty of two of the three

charges stands confirmed and also the finding of the

tribunal that the domestic enquiry was valid also stands

confirmed. Bearing these factors in mind, the Industrial

Tribunal shall apply the settled legal principles which

have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act and

pass reasoned order on merit in accordance with law.

Since the termination was of the year 2009 and

the award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on

19.02.2020, we request the Industrial Tribunal to give an

early hearing to the matter subject to the parties

cooperating with the tribunal preferably within two

months.

(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)