M/S. Tamralipta Co-Operative ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6966 Cal

Item No.8 of list dt. 9.9.22.

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 APPELLATE SIDE
                                HEARD ON: 26.09.2022

                            DELIVERED ON:26.09.2022

                                     CORAM:

                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
                                       AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA


                                   F.M.A. No.1325 of 2021
                                          With
                                   I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022

                M/s. Tamralipta Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
                                        Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. S. M. Obaidullah,
Mr. Ravi Chowdhury                                      .....    for the appellant.

Ms. Sikha Roy                                   ...      for the respondent no.3.

                                    JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

1. This intra Court appeal by the writ petition is directed

against the order dated 4th July, 2018 in W.P. 20613(W) of 2017

by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

The appellant had challenged the award passed by the First

Labour Court, Kolkata dated 28th April, 2017 by filing the writ

petition. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the

respondent / workman for insubordination and disobedience. This

resulted in issuance of a charge memo, a domestic enquiry was

conducted in which the charges were held to be proved and the

disciplinary authority namely, the appellant imposed a

punishment of dismissal from service. The validity and legality

of the dismissal was put to challenge before the Labour Court by

way of a dispute raised under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").

2. The Labour Court after carefully examining the evidence,

which was available has recorded that during the domestic

enquiry, while holding that there was insubordination on the

part of the respondent / workman came to the conclusion that the

punishment of dismissal was very harsh and accordingly exercised

its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act and modified the

punishment by setting the order of dismissal and directing the

workman to be reinstated and restricting the back wages only 20%

for the period from 7th March, 2013 to the month of February,

2015 with no other consequential benefits.

3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant was dismissed

by the learned Single Bench after noting the facts and more

particularly, the Labour Court had appreciated the entire

material and arrived at a proper conclusion.

4. Before us, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant

had elaborately contended as to how the appellant had lost

confidence in the employee and the Labour Court had erred in

setting aside the order of dismissal and interfering with the

punishment imposed on the workman. On the contrary, learned

Advocate appearing for the respondent / workman submitted that

the Labour Court rightly took into consideration the evidence on

record recorded in domestic enquiry and found the punishment

imposed to be very harsh and accordingly, modified the

punishment and there was no error in the award of the Labour

Court and therefore, the learned Writ Court rightly dismissed

the writ petition.

5. After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocates

appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials

placed on record, we find that the award of the Labour Court to

be a well-reasoned order. The Labour Court had noted the

correct legal position by referring to various decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and proceeded to examine the factual

position. The Labour Court found that the enquiry officer has

not given any finding as to whether the nature of the misconduct

committed by the workman to be very grave or a minor misconduct.

That apart, the Labour Court found that there were gross

inconsistencies in the evidence of the management witnesses and

there was nothing on record to show that the workman had used

force on the superior of the appellant / society.

6. Furthermore, the Labour Court upheld the validity of the

domestic enquiry and found the same to have been done in full

compliance of the principles of natural justice. After pointing

out these factors, the Labour Court invoked its power under

Section 11A of the Act, took note of the decision in the case of

Narayanan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported

in 2001-III-LLJ (suppl) 169 and pointed out that though there

was an allegation that the workman attempted to assault a

superior officer, there was no acceptable evidence, which was

produced during the domestic enquiry and also found that the

testimony of the witnesses of the management suffer from

inconsistencies, which cast a cloud as to whether the misconduct

on the part of the workman can at all be said to be a major

misconduct.

7. The challenge to the award of the Labour Court being a

proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

Court has to exercise its jurisdiction not as an appellate

authority over an award passed by the Labour Court but to

examine as to whether there is any error in the decision making

process and whether there was any wrong appreciation of the

factual position.

8. None of the abovementioned criteria stands fulfilled in the

instant case and therefore, we are of the view that the learned

writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition and no grounds

have been made out for interference with the same.

9. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

10. No order as to costs.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance

of all legal formalities.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)

I agree,

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)

NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)