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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
425From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You can prefer a writ appeal under Article 226 before the State High Court against the award of the Labor Court.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 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 inquiry conducted by the private company. Nevertheless, should we just take at face value the self-certification by the private company on the validity, legality, or properness of the inquiry 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 the judiciary citing it as interference, then the unscrupulous elements of 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 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 inquiry conducted by the private company. Nevertheless, should we just take at face value the self-certification by the private company on the validity, legality, or properness of the inquiry 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 the judiciary citing it as interference, then the unscrupulous elements of 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 inquiry 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 under Section 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 inquiry 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 under Section 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 the 80s and 90s, there was a judicial trend involving the higher court to interfere in punishments, and the employees indicted even for theft, abusive behavior, etc., were given reprieve by the Supreme Court. There is a famous quote of the 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 comments that if the Honorable Judge is addressed so, will it be tolerated?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the 80s and 90s, there was a judicial trend involving the higher court to interfere in punishments, and the employees indicted even for theft, abusive behavior, etc., were given reprieve by the Supreme Court. There is a famous quote of the 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 comments that if the Honorable Judge is addressed so, will it be tolerated?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
This is my supplementary post on the usage of the word "interference".
In judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court (SC), the High Courts, or even the lower courts have used the word "interference". However, the context for their use was different.
In the heading of this post or 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 serves the purpose of checks and balances and prevents the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is my supplementary post on the usage of the word "interference".
In judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court (SC), the High Courts, or even the lower courts have used the word "interference". However, the context for their use was different.
In the heading of this post or 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 serves the purpose of checks and balances and prevents the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear HR Leaders Thanks for your erudite and knowledgeable replies which are useful for my understanding.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear colleague,
It seems the senior colleague has problems with the use of the expression 'interference' by higher courts in the order of punishment of the trial court. In the process, he has hammered far-fetched, uncalled-for commentary on the democratic institutions when the expression in question is so commonly and routinely used in legal parlance without any hesitation by all legal professionals.
Regarding the query, sharing the comments of the learned colleagues M/s Umakanthan and KK!HR, I would like to reiterate that, in 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It seems the senior colleague has problems with the use of the expression 'interference' by higher courts in the order of punishment of the trial court. In the process, he has hammered far-fetched, uncalled-for commentary on the democratic institutions when the expression in question is so commonly and routinely used in legal parlance without any hesitation by all legal professionals.
Regarding the query, sharing the comments of the learned colleagues M/s Umakanthan and KK!HR, I would like to reiterate that, in 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of 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.