THE SECRETARY, SREEVIDYAPRAKASINI vs.

THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - OP No. 1479 of 2003(Y) [2006]

RD-KL 3141 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP 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
ORDER
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
O.P. No. 1479 OF 2003 A
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

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 against
him interfered with punishment imposed on the workman by the management, in exercise of powers
under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement with 75% back wages with
continuity of service. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking into account
the fact that the management is engaged in chitty business, the misconduct proved against the workman
is serious enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in
directing 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 the
misconduct 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.
4. The misconduct proved against the workman is that he was sent to Kuzhoor Service Co-operative
Bank on 20.11.1998 at 10.30 A.M. for OP.1479/03 2 making entries in the pass book of the management
in respect of the account maintained by the management in that bank, but he returned to the
management's office only at 4.30 P.M. though he had left the Service Co- operative Bank at 11.40 A.M
after his errand. There was a further allegation that in view of the delay in getting the pass book updated
and 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 of
dereliction of duty and, therefore, the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the fact that there was an
earlier 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 of
misconduct, which has not been proved before the Tribunal, deserves the extreme punishment of
dismissal from service. But I am satisfied that the award of 75% back wages is not commensurate with
the gravity of the misconduct. Accordingly while confirming the direction to reinstate the workman with
continuity of service, I direct that the back wages be reduced to 40%. With the above modification in
Ext.P1 award, this original petition is disposed of.
(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)
S. SIRI JAGAN , J.
OP No.1479/03A

JUDGMENT

11th December, 2006