Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Procedure and power of conciliation officers. Boards, Courts and Tribunals.— 1[(1) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, an arbitrator, a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority concerned may think fit.] (2) A conciliation officer or a member of a Board, 2[or Court or the presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] may for the purpose of inquiry into any existing or apprehended industrial dispute, after giving reasonable notice, enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which the dispute relates, (3) Every Board, Court, 3[Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal] shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b)compelling the production of documents and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; (d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed, and every inquiry or investigation by a Board, Court, 4[Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (4) A conciliation officer 5[may enforce the attendance of any person for the purpose of examination of such person or call for] and inspect any 1 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, for sub-section (5) (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 2 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, for “Court or Tribunal” (w.e.f. 10.3.1957) sub-section (6). 3 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, for “and Tribunal” (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 4 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 5 Subs. by Act 46 of 1982, Section 9, for “may call for” (w.e.f. 21.8.1984). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 document which he has ground for considering to be relevant to the industrial dispute 6[or to be necessary for the purpose of verifying the implementation of any award or carrying out any other duty imposed on him under this Act, and for the aforesaid purposes, the conciliation officer shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) 1 [in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him or of compelling the production of documents]]. 2 [(5) A Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal may, if it so thinks fit, appoint one or more persons having special knowledge of the matter, under consideration as an assessor or assessors to advise it in the proceeding before it.] 3[(6)All conciliation officers, members of a Board or Court and the presiding officers of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] 4[(7) Subject to any rules made under this Act, the costs of, and incidental to, any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be in the discretion of that Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have full power to determine by and to whom and to what extent and subject to what conditions, if any, such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid and such costs may, on application made to the appropriate Government by the person entitled, be recovered by that Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.] 5[(8) Every 1[Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] shall be deemed to be Civil Court for the purposes of 2[sections 345, 346 and 348 of the Code Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)].] 1 Subs. by Act 46 of 1952, Section 9, for “in respect of compelling the production of documents” (w.e.f. 21.8.1984). 2 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 3 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 4 Sub-section (7) ins. by Act 48 of 1950, Section 34 and Schedule and Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9 (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 5 Ins. by Act 48 of 1950, Section 34 and Schedule. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 3[11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.—Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.] Case Law Consideration of relevant factors The power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the court can direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded; Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank, AIR 2003 SC 1377. Effect of order The order of termination of services of a workman operates prospectively from the date on which it was passed; Kumaon Motor Owners’ Union Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1994 LLR 366 (All). Evidence When the Tribunal allows the management to produce evidence after holding the domestic enquiry as illegal, the evidence given by the employers in domestic enquiry is wiped out and the Tribunal has to record the findings on the basis of evidence before it while adjudicating an industrial dispute pertaining to dismissal of the Workman; Luxco Electronics v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, 2004 LLR 461. Interpretation 1 Subs. by Act 36 of 1956, Section 9, for “Tribunal” (w.e.f. 10.3.1957). 2 Subs. by Act 46 of 1982, Section 9, for certain words (w.e.f. 21.8.1984). 3 Ins. by Act 45 of 1971, Section 3 (w.e.f. 15.12.1971). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 On the finding of the Labour Court that the appellant was absent for sixty-two days and had submitted leave application only for 15 days the award of the Labour Court directing reimbursement with full back wages in spite of recording a finding of delinquency as extracted hereinabove amounts to a misreading of provision of section 11A; Boman v. P.O., Labour Court (2003) II LLJ 551 (Del). Misappropriation When the action of the delinquent resulted in loss of revenue to the corporation and once misappropriation is proved, then it is within the discretion of the employer to impose maximum penalty. So, no case for interference with discretion rightly exercised by Labour Court; Manoharan R. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, (2002) IV LLJ (Supp) Mad 850. Misconduct In the instant case misconduct accepted as proved by Labour Court is serious one warranting extreme punishment and Labour Court ought not to have interfered with punishment holding it to be shocking by disproportionate. No extenuating circumstances found to interfere with order of punishment of dismissal of respondent workman; Anantnathji Maharaj Jain Temple and its Sadharan Funds, Mumbai v. Rajan G. Pandey, (2002) IV LLJ (Supp) Bom 916. Punishment proportionate to guilt The punishment imposed can be interfered with only on being satisfied that it was highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt; Breach Candy Hospital and Research Centre v. Babulal B. Pardeshi, (2002) IV LLJ (Supp) Bom 1011. The power under section 11A is akin to appellate power. The competent adjudicating authority has jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment even in cases where finding of guilt recorded by the employer is upheld or in the case of no enquiry or defective enquiry; Vidya Dhar v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 1994 LLR 229 (Raj). Once the misconduct is established, the maximum punishment stipulated therefore can be awarded. However, the Labour Court has full discretion to award lesser punishment; Hindalco Workers Union v. Labour Court, 1994 LLR 379 (All).