Om Parkash Sharma And Another vs National Capital Territory Of ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed against the same award rendered by Labour Court-III in I.D. 475 of 1983. Civil Writ Petition No. 3250 of 1996 is filed by the workman and Civil Writ Petition No. 4067 of 1996 is filed by the Management. By the impugned award the Labour Court held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was valid and fair. However, in case of workman Shri Om Parkash Sharma punishment of dismissal is converted into that of discharge directing that he would be entitled to benefit of past service and consequential benefits upto the date of order of dismissal. In case of workman, Shri Ram Sanehi, Labour Court had held that the punishment of dismissal was shocking and disproportionate to the charges proved against him and this punishment is accordingly substituted by punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Direction is issued that he be reinstated and he would be entitled to 50% of the backwages as if he remained suspended till the date of passing of the award.

2. Workman had filed this writ petition challenging the findings of the Labour Court-III, recorded in award dated 4th May, 1985 and finally confirmed vide award dated 7th May, 1996, holding the enquiry to be fair and valid. Management has filed the writ petition against the aforesaid portion of the award whereby Labour Court has interfered with the punishment imposed upon these two workmen with the prayer that the original punishment of dismissal imposed upon these workmen be restored.

3. Brief facts of the cases, to appreciate the controversy in dispute may be noticed at this stage. Both the workmen are the employee of Scooters India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Management, for short). Shri Om Parkash Sharma was appointed as skilled worker (Turner) with the Management on 8th November, 1976 and Shri Ram Sanehi was appointed as semi-skilled worker (Tool Room) on 16th Februrary, 1976. Vide order dated 25th March, 1982, petitioner no.1 i.e. Shri Om Parkash Sharma was suspended from service and vide order dated 28th March, 1982 Shri Ram Sanehi was also suspended from service. Gist of charges levelled against the workmen are as under:-

4-D. The gist of charges levelled against Shri O.P. Sharma (Respondent No.2) are hereunder:-

On 24-3-82 at about 9.00 a.m. he entered the cabin of Mr. C.L. Karnwal, Administrative Officer and surrounded him abused him in foul language.

- Slapped on the cheek of Shri C.L. Karnwal.

- Instigated other employees to stop work.

- Repeatedly attempted to assault Shri C.L.Karnwal with heavy iron rotor stand.

- Abused Mr. M.A. Basit, Sr. Officer of Machine Shope.

- On 27-3-82 at about 6.00 p.m. when Shri S.K. Bansal, Dy. Manager was going back to his home, Shri O.P. Sharma and Shri Ram Sanehi & other goods elements forcibly stopped him and assaulted him on the face and on the body with wooden plank.

The gist of charges levelled against Shri Ram Sanehi in the charge sheet dated 25-3-82 and 26-3-82 (Respond No.3) are hereunder:-

I. On 24-3-82 at about 9.00 a.m. he entered the cabin of Shri A.M. Basit, Senior Ofrficer, Machine Shop and surrounded him; also indulged in heated conversation on irrelevant matters; abused him in four language; threatened him of dire consequences.

On 24-3-82 slapped Shri C.L. Karnwal, Administrative Officer and also attempted to assault him.

II. On 27-3-82 at about 6.00 p.m. he forced Shri S.K. Bansal, Dy. Manager, who was on his way back to his home, to stop his scooter at the gate and gave continuous blows on his face and assaulted him with wooden plank.

That the Ld. Labour Court has the power u/s. 11-A of the I.D.

Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded to the employer for proved misconduct if the punishment is found to be not justified. In fact, under the impugned award dated 7th October, 1996, the Ld. Labour Court has not given any reasoning as to how the punishment awarded to the respondents were not justified. The Ld. Labour Court failed to appreciate that the charges proved against the respondents were so serious and the very acts of misconducts committed by the resposndents were sufficient enough to impose the punishments of dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal from service was fully justified looking to the nature of the charges proved against the respondents. As far as the Respondent No. 2 is concerned, that the Ld. Labour Court modified the punishment osf dismissal to one of discharge; for Respondent No.3, it was substituted as stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages. Therefore, the award is to the extent of substitution of punishment and awarding of relief to Respondent No. 3 is bad and liable to be struck down.

4. Enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry gave the findings that the charges against these workmen stood proved and on that basis both the workmen were dismissed from service by order dated 2/3rd December, 1982. Both the workmen raised industrial dispute challenging their dismissal which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court-III with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the dismissal from services of S/Shri Om Parkash and Ram Sanehi is legal/justified and if no, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

5. After the pleadings, Labour Court framed the following preliminary issue on 11th May, 1984 : "Whether enquiry is improper and invalid as alleged in the statement of claim?" Evidence was led and issue was decided by the Labour Court vide award/order dated 4th May, 1985 holding that enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer/Management were proper and valid and full opportunity was given to the workmen and all principles of natural justice have been complied with. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to determine the dispute referred before it and ultimately passed the impugned award dated 7th May, 1996. In the said award again the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are discussed in detail holding that charges levelled against workmen stood proved. However, as noticed above, while examining as to whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workmen is proper or not, the Labour Court interfered with the same and in the case of Shri O.P. Sharma the punishment of dismissal is substituted by discharge and in the case of Shri Ram Sanehi, the punishment of dismissal is substituted by penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and he is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. It would be appropriate to first deal with Civil Writ Petition 3250 of 1996 filed by the workman challenging the findings recorded by the Labour Court in its preliminary award dated 4th May, 1995 as well as final award dated 7th May, 1996.

Civil Writ Petition No. 3250 of 1996.

6. Ms. Manjit Chawla, learned counsel for the workman assailed the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the aforesaid two awards on the following grounds:-

(i) The enquiry held by the Management is vitiated inasmuch as Mr. S.K.Krishnan who signed the chargesheet also appeared as a witness in the departmental enquiry. Likewise Shri Unnikrishnan who was Presiding Officer also appeared as witness;

(ii) The Enquiry Officer of his own examined four witnesses namely, Mr. Parmeshwari, Mr. P. Hans Pal, Mr. R. Singh and Mr. S.K. Krishnan, who were not named in the list of witnesses.

(iii) Since both the workman were office bearer and trade unionist. They were imp leaded in a false case and were victimised.

7. It was submitted that there were no such incident which happened on 24th February, 1982 or 27th February, 1982 as alleged in the chargesheet which were cooked up by the Management. The Enquiry Officer, submitted, with pre-determined mind disbelieved the version of the workman although as many as 14 witnesses were produced to prove that such incidence took place. It was further submitted that in such type of cases enquiry officer should not have believed the version of Management witnesses who were interested witnesses. Moreover, when the Enquiry Officer suo motto examined four witnesses and out of them two witnesses namely, Mr. Parmeshwari and Mr. P. Hans Pal testified in favour of workman and these being independent witnesses should have been believed rather than believing the interested witnesses of the Management. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice was violated and the Labour Court examined the cases from the wrong angle. It was not only supposed to see that principles of natural justice are followed in the sense that proper opportunity is given to the workman by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court was also under obligation to examine that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was proper and there was no vicitmisation. In support of her submission she relied upon the judgment of upreme Court in the case of Yashvir Singh Vs. Modern Food Industries India Limited .

8. Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Management countered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner by submitting that the Labour Court had, after analysing the evidence on record produced before it, in its detailed award dated 4th May, 1985 came into finding of fact that in the enquiry principles of natural justice have been fairly complied with and the enquiry conducted was valid and proper. The petitioner could not point out any infirmity with the said order. He further submitted that the allegation that Shri Krishnan could not serve the chargesheet or Shri Unnikrishnan cannot act as Presiding Officer was not taken before the Labour Court and these allegations are made for the first time in these proceedings. In any case, according to him, Mr. Krishnan being Plant Manager was a authority designated for such purpose and therefore doctrine of necessity would apply in such a case as no other person could issue chargesheet. Morevoer, he submitted that no breach was caused to the workman on this account because after the Enquiry Officer returned findings and the matter was dealt with by the General Manager Shri A. Sahai, who before giving the punishment to the workman gave full opportunity to show cause as to why their services be not terminated and ultimately passed the impugned orders dismissing the two workmen from service and these orders were not passed by Mr. S.K. Krishnan. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has given his findings on the basis of material placed before him which were upheld by the Labour Court also and this Court would not sit as appellate Court over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and/or Labour Court.

9. In so far as allegation of victimisation are concerned, he referred to the relevant portion of the order dated 4th May, 1985 to contend that this aspect was specifically examined by the Labour Court and giving cogent reasoning Labour Court refused to accept that there was any victimisation. His submission was that once the charges are proved which shows that the workmen did commit misconduct, it was the right of the Management to impose punishment and question of victimisation does not arise in such a case.

10. After framing preliminary issue as to whether enquiry is improper or invalid as alleged by the workman, the Labour Court examined this issue and passed award dated 4th May, 1985. Perusal of the said award shows that the Labour Court had examined the entire record of the enquiry proceedings and held that the enquiry conducted against the workmen was by an independent Enquiry Officer who followed principles of natural justice. The proceedings adopted by him in conducting the enquiry was fair and proper. He referred to the judgments of the Apex Court and in the light of the law laid down in this judgment he came to the conclusion that the Enquiry held was valid. Following portion of the order dated 4th May, 1985 would be worth quoting here :-

"In view of the discussions made above, it is apparently clear that Principle of Natural Justice have been fully complied with by the enquiry officer when he conducted the enquiry against the workman. He allowed the opportunity to the workmen to cross examine the witnesses produced by the management. He also allowed the workman to produce their evidence and took the note of the proceedings with the help of their co-worker. The presence of workman clearly indicated by their signatures on each days proceedings. So, non-supply of the copy of the proceedings is justified because no prejudice is caused to the workman. The enquiry roceedings were written in hand by the enquiry officer and the workman took part during the entire proceedings.

During the second stage before giving the punishment to the workman, the General Manager, Shri A. Sahai gave full opportunity to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated. In response to the show cause notice, the workmen did not reply it on one ground or the other.

Therefore, I am convinced with the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management in this case. They have given full opportunity to the workman and all the principles of natural justice had been complied with. They have not been prejudiced during the course of enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the management is valid and proper in this case.

Accordingly, the issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of the management.

11. It may be mentioned here that this order was passed by Shri Dalbir Singh who was Presiding Officer of Labour Court-III. Thereafter Mr. A.S. Balbir succeeded him as Presiding Officer in Labour Court-III and award dated 7th May, 1996 is passed by him. Notwithstanding the earlier order dated 4th May, 1985 holding enquiry to be valid and proper, in award dated 7th May, 1996 Labour Court again examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after detailed discussion the Labour Court in the impugned award has held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in believing the Management witnesses and holding the charges as proved was valid and proper. The main thrust of the workman raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer, or for that matter, Labour Court should not have believed Management witness or should not have discarded the witnesses of the workmen or for that matter should have placed more reliance on the so called independent witnesses namely, Mr. Parmeshwari and Mr. P. Hans Pal is without any force. It is well established principle of law that the Courts would not interfere with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. Infact, the Labour Court in its award dated 7th May, 1996 showed extra enthusiasm in discussing this aspect. Be as it may, even the Labour Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding charges as proved against the workmen are proper and valid. Therefore, this Court in exercise of this power under Article 226 of the Constitution would not interfere with such findings of fact and assumed the role of an appellate authority. In so far as, the contention of the petitioner that the workmen were victimised is concerned, this aspect is also dealt with by the Labour Court at great length and following portion of the impugned award dated 7th May, 1996 dealing with this aspect is reproduced:-

"It is next contended that both the workmen were victimised and made scapegoats as they were exposing the corrupt practice of the management. They also alleged that due to union activities they had got liquidated one Shri Bihari Lal an active member of the Union.

Ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting punishment is established, such action will be rid of the taint of victimisation.

Victimisation may partake of various types, as for example, pressurising as employee to leave the union or union activities, treating an employee in a discriminatory manner or inflicting a grossly monstrous punishment which no rational person would impose upon an employee and the like. Victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and, therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded. The charge must not be vague or indefinite. The fact that there is a union espousing the cause of the employee and persuing the legitimate trade union activity and an employee is a member or active office bearer thereof, is per se no crucial instance of victimisation.

The onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be upon the person pleading it. Since a charge of victimisation is a serious matter reflecting to a degree upon the subjective attitude of the employer evidenced by acts and conduct, there have to be established by safe and sure evidence. Mere allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. All particulars of the charge brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of the evidence produced.

Victimisation must be directly connected with the activities of the concerned employee inevitably leading to the penal action without the necessary proof of valid charge against him.

If in the opinion of the Tribunal gross misconduct is established as required on legal evidence either in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the Tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization will not carry the case of the employee any further. A proved misconduct is antithesis of victimisation as understood in industrial relations. This is not to say that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of dismissal on proof of victimisation.

12. After making the aforesaid observation, the Labour Court examined the case in detail and held that charges stood proved. It may be mentioned that merely because workmen were office bearer, does not give them license to commit misconduct or indulge in such violent activities. If they are charged with this kind of misconduct and misconduct having been proved in the enquiry, the petitioner cannot contend that they are punished because of their trade union activities or there was any victimisation. In any case, this aspect has been dealt with in detail by the Labour Court on the basis of which he returned the findings of fact that there was no victimisation and the petitioner could not point out as to how these findings were perverse or erroneous. Mere fact that the workmen were office bearers would not led to the conclusion that they were victimised. Moreover, Labour Court rightly pointed out that mere allegations, fake suggestions and insinuations were not enough to establish plea of victimisation. As far as plea of the petitioner that Shri S.K. Krishnan who signed the chargesheet became witness is concerned, I find that the answer given by the respondent is satisfactory inasmuch as Plant Manager or the person who had to issue chargesheet as per rules had acted in this manner. The judgment cited by the petitioner in Yashvir Singh (supra) is of no help to the workmen. Perusal of the said judgment which is only one paragraph judgment would show that only the contention of respective parties were noticed by the Court. To put an end to the matter it would be appropriate that the Management pays adequate compensation to the workmen instead of reinstatement with back wages. The said case does not lay down any principle of law which can be cited as precedent. Moreover, admittedly, this petition was not taken at any stage earlier either in the enquiry or even before the Labour Court. The workmen are therefore precluded from raising such issue at this stage and this contention merits rejection even on this ground. I accordingly find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

Civil Writ Petition No. 4167 of 1996

13. While interfering with the quantum of punishment the Labour Court has observed in the impugned award dated 7th May, 1996 as under:

"It is now well settled that merely because the workman happened to be a Trade Union Leader, it does not give him "carter blucher" to commit misconduct and that he remained amenable to discipline. The proved misconduct is antithesis of victimisation. But in my considered opinion, keeping the past record of Sh.O.P. Sharma, who was found guilty of slapping A.O. it shall be in the fitness of the circumstances that he would have been discharged from service instead of dismissing him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that he be treated as dammed to have been discharged and is entitled to the benefits of this past services and consequential benefits upto the date of order of the dismissal.

As regards the case of Sh. Ram Sanehi is concerned though he was charged for the incident of 24.2.82, but nothing is proved against him. No witness deposed about his role on that day but he was found attempting to assault Shri Bansal with a wooden plank "Fatter", lying over there. Thus, he simply wanted to intimidate the officer. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the punishment accorded to Shri Ram Sanehi is shocking and disproportionate regard being had to the charge proved. I am also of the opinion that no responsible employee (here being a govt. undertaking a model employee) would ever impose in the like circumstances the extreme punishment of dismissal. In view of the facts discussed above I am of the opinion that under the circumstances stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect shall meet the ends of jsutice. He be reinstated. But he will be entitled to 50% of the back wages as if he has remained suspended till the date of passing of this Award.

This is my AWARD."

14. In the case of Shri Om Parkash Sharma the punishment of dismissal is converted into discharge to enable Shri Om Parkash Sharma to get benefits of his past service and consequential benefits upto the date of order of dismissal. No doubt the charges levelled against the workman were of serious nature and even when the Labour Court has interfered with the punishment, this workman is not granted reinstatement and the punishment is converted into discharge only to enable him to get service benefits. When the discretion is exercised by the Labour Court in this manner it would not be appropriate to interfere with such discretion in so far as the case of Shri Om Parkash Sharma is concerned. Coming to the case of Shri Ram Sanehi, Labour Court has held that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is shocking and disproportionate. The Labour Court while coming to the conclusion has referred to the incident of 24th February, 1982 and has stated that no charges are proved against him and no witness deposed about his role on that date. The only factum proved against him is that he did made an attempt to assault Shri Bansal with a wooden plank-"Fatter" lying their and thus he wanted to intimidate that officer. Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Management assailed this finding on the ground that the Labour Court considered the incident of 24th February, 1982 only and did not take into consideration the incident of 27th March, 1982 and the charges which were proved against him in respect of this incident. He referred to the charges to demonstrate that the charges which were proved as per the said chargesheet were of very serious nature and he also submitted that in para 54 of the same award, Labour Court had itself held that the role of Shri Ram Sanehi in the incident of 27th March, 1982 was proved against him. However, while discussing the aspect of quantum of punishment the Labour Court lost sight of the charges which were proved against Shri Ram Sanehi in the incident dated 27th March, 1982 and thus, ignoring this material, the Labour Court presumed that the charges proved against Shri Ram Sanehi was not of serious nature. He submitted that if the charges which are proved against Shri Ram Sanehi are taken into consideration which are serious enough to justify the punishment of dismissal and the Labour Court wrongly interfered with the same by ignoring the incident of 27th March, 1982. In support of his submission that the punishment imposed upon Shri Ram Sanehi is proper and reasonable he relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Lalu Mahto Vs. The Presiding Officer of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and another reported in 1987 LIC 416.

2. Management of Portland Estate Vs. Suresh Babu P. and another reported in 99(1) LLJ 300.

3. Management of M/s. Eastern Electric and Trading Co. Vs. Baldev Lal .

4. Kottarakkara Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Sreenivasan and another reported in 91(1) LLN 237.

15. As against the aforesaid submission of Mr. Jagat Arora, Ms. Manjit Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman-Ram Sanehi submitted that the Labour Court rightly interfered with the punishment imposed upon Shri Ram Sanehi as the same was shocking and disproportionate having regard to the charges proved against him. She further submitted that as far as the incident of 27th March, 1982 is concerned, the Labour Court took into consideration the testimony of Shri C.L. Karnwal, Administrative Officer of the Management who appeared before the Enquiry Officer and stated that he was only stopped and not attacked. This was not a serious misconduct. It is further submitted that once the Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction this Court should not interefere with the same and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Scooters India Limited, Lucknow Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow and others .

16. Admittedly while interfering with the punishment imposed upon Shri Ram Sanehi, the Labour Court has looked into the incident of 24th February, 1982 only. Para 63 of the award which is extracted above would clearly demonstrate that there is no reference to the incident of 27th March, 1982. Therefore, it is obvious that Labour Court when it came into conclusion that the punishment accredited to Shri Ram Sanehi was shocking and disproportionate, it did not keep that as per the incident of 27th March, 1982 the charges are proved against him and Labour Court itself had held the same as proved in the earlier part of the award. A perusal of the paragraph 54 of the award where the incident is discussed the following is attributed to Shri Ram Sanehi :-

"Sh. Karnwal tried to take his scooter out, but Mrs. P. Singh caught his arm and pushed him. The scooter could not be controlled and went in the bushes. Smt. Singh also caught hold of Shri Krishnan by the collar and was trying to push him down. On the other side about 4 yards away, Sh. Bansal was being attacked by Shri O.P. Sharma and Shri Ram Sanehi. The Security Guards intervened and they saved Sh. Karnwal, Shri Krishnan and Shri Bansal from the clucks of Mrs. P. Singh, Sh. O.P. Sharma and Sh. Ram Sanehi. The police was informed and they went home in the protection of the police. They gone to Police Station where F.I.R. was lodged."

17. Moreover the role of Shri Ram Sanehi in the incident of 24th February, 1982 and 27th March, 1982 as attributed and proved against him cannot be treated as non-serious. The act of intimidation/violence are serious acts of misconduct. Without referring to various judgments cited by the petitioner it would be sufficient to refer to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Kottarakkara Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Sreenivasan and another reported in 91(1) LLN 237 where the High Court observed as follows:-

"The Labour Court seems to think that dispensation of leniency unrelated to facts is a virtue in itself. Maybe, it is not pleasant for any authority to impose punishments. But, when a situation requires imposition of punishment in the interest of efficiency and discipline, the plain requirement of the situation cannot be glossed over by professions of equity and compassion. No one can miss the constitutional perceptions to which the State is beholden, namely, to secure just and humane conditions of work, and creation of congenial working atmosphere (Arts. 43 and

44). At once, the industry and all its components must strive towards excellence, so that the country rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement (Art. 51-A(j). Excellence is not achieved except with a deep sense of commitment to work and discipline. Diluting discipline and condoning indiscipline would only destroy motivation. Loyalty to work and discipline are not alien to industrial jurisprudence. Misguided sympathy is no more than a maudlin sentiment. The workman held an office of trust. The manner of his functioning was bound to have an impact on the efficiency reputation of the financial institution which employed him. Beyond dispute, he had tampered with the accounts. To say that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, either meaning that the offence was not grave, or meaning that the punishment was harsh, prima facie, does not appear to be correct. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. A.K. Roy , and Workmen of Bharat Fritz Warner (Private) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner (Private) Ltd. (1990-I LLN 481), illumine this area. Even where charges are not established, reinstatement is not the invariable rule. Relief must be moulded on diverse considerations. Loss of confidence and nature of post held must be borne in mind in deciding whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered. That is the rule when disciplinary action itself is unsustainable. A broader approach is not justified when the findings of misconduct stand.

5. The Labour Court misdirected itself in law. However, I do not express a final opinion on the question of punishment to be imposed, for, this is in the province of the Labour Court. The Labour Court will take back the matter or file and consider the question of punishment with reference to the facts of the case, the nature of relationship between between employer and employee, the question of confidence, nature of duties of the post and other relevant facts, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the principle indicated hereinbefore. Exhibit P-6 award is quashed to the limited extent it varied the punishment imposed by the management.

18. In the present case the role of Shri Ram Sanehi is no less than that of Shri Om Parkash Sharma in the aforesaid two incidents which could justify lesser punishment to Shri Ram Sanehi. Nodoubt this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would normally not interfere with the discretion exercised by Labour Court by interfering with the punishment, but when it is found that the discretion is not exercised on sound judicial principles or when the relevant material is ignored in exercising such discretion this Court has ample power to interfere with such discretion. Admittedly, Labour Court while presuming that the misconduct committed by Shri Ram Sanehi was not of serious nature did not at all consider the incident of 27th March, 1982. Had it been considred, the opinion of Labour Court would not have been the same. Thus para 63 of the impugned award dated 7th May, 1996 is hereby set aside. In the case of Shri Ram Sanehi also punishment of dismissal is converted into that of discharge to enable him to get the benefit of past service and consequential benefits upto the date of order of dismissal. In addition he shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- which be paid to him within a period of 15 days. The benefits to which the workmen would be entitled to should be paid to them within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.