8/7/2019 Sreevidyaprakasini sabha, Jugement of Mr. Reghu, Employee, Sreevidyaprakasini sabha, Kodungallur

1/2

THE SECRETARY, SREEVIDYAPRAKASINI vs. THEINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - OP No. 1479 of 2003(Y) [2006]

RD-KL 3141 (11 December 2006)IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 1479 of 2003(Y)

1. THE SECRETARY, SREEVIDYAPRAKASINI... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,... Respondent

2. GENERAL SECRETARY, THRISSUR

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````

O.P. No. 1479 OF 2003 A

````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006

J U D G M E N T

The management in I.D. No.24/2001 is challenging the award, Ext.P1, passed by the Industrial Tribunal,Palakkad in that I.D. The Tribunal after finding the workman guilty of the misconduct alleged againsthim interfered with punishment imposed on the workman by the management, in exercise of powersunder section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement with 75% back wages withcontinuity of service. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking into accountthe fact that the management is engaged in chitty business, the misconduct proved against the workmanis serious enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong indirecting reinstatement of the workman after finding him guilty of the misconduct, that too with 75%back wages.

2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Union submits that considering the trivial nature of themisconduct proved against the workman, the same did not warrant the punishment of dismissal and,

therefore, the award of the Tribunal is perfectly just and proper.3. I have considered the rival arguments in detail.

8/7/2019 Sreevidyaprakasini sabha, Jugement of Mr. Reghu, Employee, Sreevidyaprakasini sabha, Kodungallur

2/2

4. The misconduct proved against the workman is that he was sent to Kuzhoor Service Co-operativeBank on 20.11.1998 at 10.30 A.M. for OP.1479/03 2 making entries in the pass book of the managementin respect of the account maintained by the management in that bank, but he returned to themanagement's office only at 4.30 P.M. though he had left the Service Co- operative Bank at 11.40 A.Mafter his errand. There was a further allegation that in view of the delay in getting the pass book updatedand returned on that day itself the same had affected the chitty transactions of the petitioner on that day.

The management had also alleged that the workman was earlier committed similar misconducts ofdereliction of duty and, therefore, the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the fact that there was anearlier finding for misconduct the workman certainly deserve the punishment of dismissal from service.

5. I have considered the rival arguments.

6. I do not think that the above said misconduct even coupled with the alleged earlier finding ofmisconduct, which has not been proved before the Tribunal, deserves the extreme punishment ofdismissal from service. But I am satisfied that the award of 75% back wages is not commensurate withthe gravity of the misconduct. Accordingly while confirming the direction to reinstate the workman withcontinuity of service, I direct that the back wages be reduced to 40%. With the above modification inExt.P1 award, this original petition is disposed of.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

S. SIRI JAGAN , J.

OP No.1479/03A

J U D G M E N T

11th December, 2006