Once the departmental enquiry 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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

KK!HR
1593

The proportionality of punishment can be challenged in a proceeding before the Labour Court as per the ID Act 1947, and there is no provision for further appeal or revision therefrom. However, the general principle is that the High Court, under Article 227 (Supervisory jurisdiction), can examine the matter to determine if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, if any settled legal principle has been violated, or if the Labour Court has breached principles of natural justice. There have been various instances where both the High Court and the Supreme Court have interfered in the punishments ordered by the Labour Court.

During the days of Justice Krishna Iyer, DA Desai, Chinnappa Reddy, and Venkitachaliah (1980s to 1990s), the Supreme Court was quite lenient towards errant employees and often provided some form of relief. It was established as a standard that upon proving charges of theft, dishonesty, fraud, etc., termination is the only suitable punishment. Defending the punishment during this period based on the principle of proportionality was challenging.

From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)

Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.







Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2025 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.