Once the departmental inquiry was held legal and proper, whether the interference in punishment by the labour court can be set aside as the same is not justified?
From India, New Delhi
421From India, New Delhi
You can prefer a writ appeal under Article 226 before the State High Court against the award of the Labor Court.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
Dear Kumar,
There are four pillars of democracy viz., judiciary, legislature, executive and the media. Of the four, the first three are bestowed with the legitimate powers to enforce democratic values. Under such circumstances, the functioning of the important pillars on which democracy rests, should we call it as interference?
What are the apprehensions if the private company is so sure of the domestic inquiry being legal and proper?
Your question is on the legality and properness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the private company. Nevertheless, should we just take at its face value the self-certification by the private company on the validness, legality or properness of the enquiry or allow the aggrieved party to approach the judiciary?
Alike media, the judiciary is also a watchdog and its presence itself is a sufficient deterrence to create the rule of law. If we remove the judiciary or dilute the role of judiciary citing it as interference, then the unscrupulous elements of the society will have field days to create a misrule of law.
Will society progress because of the rule of law or unruliness?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
There are four pillars of democracy viz., judiciary, legislature, executive and the media. Of the four, the first three are bestowed with the legitimate powers to enforce democratic values. Under such circumstances, the functioning of the important pillars on which democracy rests, should we call it as interference?
What are the apprehensions if the private company is so sure of the domestic inquiry being legal and proper?
Your question is on the legality and properness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the private company. Nevertheless, should we just take at its face value the self-certification by the private company on the validness, legality or properness of the enquiry or allow the aggrieved party to approach the judiciary?
Alike media, the judiciary is also a watchdog and its presence itself is a sufficient deterrence to create the rule of law. If we remove the judiciary or dilute the role of judiciary citing it as interference, then the unscrupulous elements of the society will have field days to create a misrule of law.
Will society progress because of the rule of law or unruliness?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Kumar,
On a note of deeper analysis of the subject-matter, I would like to continue the discussion further to my reply about the remedy open to an aggrieved employer as follows:
First, the chance of winning an appeal against the reduced punishment awarded by a Labor Court after its holding the enquiry held proper and fair depends upon the correlation between the gravity of the charges leveled and the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. In the matter of disciplinary control, punishment is not and cannot be the 'end' in itself. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness, it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the misconduct. That's why the labor courts, tribunals and national tribunals have been empowered u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 to modify the order of discharge or dismissal and award any other lesser punishment if the same was not justified.
From India, Salem
On a note of deeper analysis of the subject-matter, I would like to continue the discussion further to my reply about the remedy open to an aggrieved employer as follows:
First, the chance of winning an appeal against the reduced punishment awarded by a Labor Court after its holding the enquiry held proper and fair depends upon the correlation between the gravity of the charges leveled and the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. In the matter of disciplinary control, punishment is not and cannot be the 'end' in itself. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness, it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the misconduct. That's why the labor courts, tribunals and national tribunals have been empowered u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 to modify the order of discharge or dismissal and award any other lesser punishment if the same was not justified.
From India, Salem
The Labour Courts are vested with the power to interfere in punishment. The test is whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. If you are able to demonstrate that the gravity of the misconduct is such that the punishment is justified then there is every chance of success. There is no proportion laid down anywhere on what is the punishment for a particular misconduct. For example the misconduct of sleeping on duty is not a misconduct for which termination of service can be imposed but it is found justified for the Security Guard.
In 80's and 90's there was a judicial trend involving the higher court to interfere in punishments and the employees indicted even for theft, abusive behaviour etc. were given reprieve by the Supreme Court. There is a famous quote of Supreme Court, by a very benevolent judge, that 'abusive language is the language of the poor workmen so they should not be harshly punished but should be given an opportunity' which attracted a lot of comment that if the Hon'ble Judge is addressed so, will it be tolerated?.
From India, Mumbai
In 80's and 90's there was a judicial trend involving the higher court to interfere in punishments and the employees indicted even for theft, abusive behaviour etc. were given reprieve by the Supreme Court. There is a famous quote of Supreme Court, by a very benevolent judge, that 'abusive language is the language of the poor workmen so they should not be harshly punished but should be given an opportunity' which attracted a lot of comment that if the Hon'ble Judge is addressed so, will it be tolerated?.
From India, Mumbai
Dear all,
This is my supplementary post. It is on the usage of the word "interference".
In the judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court (SC) or the High Courts or even the lower courts have used the "interference". However, the context for their use was different.
In the heading of this post on even in the body of the post, the word "interference" connotes "unwanted intervention by the courts". The post portrays the idea that judicial intervention is nothing but an obstacle in the smooth running of the administration of the company. However, the judiciary is for the social good and one cannot consider it as a burden. As stated in the earlier post, the judiciary does the job of checks and balances and avoids exploitation of the poor and vulnerable sections of society. Remove the judiciary, and the country will enter into the world of anarchy.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
This is my supplementary post. It is on the usage of the word "interference".
In the judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court (SC) or the High Courts or even the lower courts have used the "interference". However, the context for their use was different.
In the heading of this post on even in the body of the post, the word "interference" connotes "unwanted intervention by the courts". The post portrays the idea that judicial intervention is nothing but an obstacle in the smooth running of the administration of the company. However, the judiciary is for the social good and one cannot consider it as a burden. As stated in the earlier post, the judiciary does the job of checks and balances and avoids exploitation of the poor and vulnerable sections of society. Remove the judiciary, and the country will enter into the world of anarchy.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear HR Leaders Thanks for your erudite and knowledgeable replies which are useful for my understanding.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Dear colleague,
It seems ,the senior colleague has problems with the the use of expression 'lnterference' by higher court/s in the order of punishment of the trial court. In the process, he has hammered , far- fetched , uncalled for commentry on the democracratic institutions when the expression in question is so commonly and routinely used in legal parlence without any hesitation by all legal professionals.
As regards the query, sharing the comments of the learned colleagues M/s Umakanhan and KK!HR, I would like to reiterate that, in the fit cases, the higher courts have powers to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
It seems ,the senior colleague has problems with the the use of expression 'lnterference' by higher court/s in the order of punishment of the trial court. In the process, he has hammered , far- fetched , uncalled for commentry on the democracratic institutions when the expression in question is so commonly and routinely used in legal parlence without any hesitation by all legal professionals.
As regards the query, sharing the comments of the learned colleagues M/s Umakanhan and KK!HR, I would like to reiterate that, in the fit cases, the higher courts have powers to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
