Section-11(A) – Powers of Labour

Court etc. to give relief in case of

discharge or dismissal of
workmen
By:
Apoorva Patwa
Gaurav Kishore
Mayank Jain
Nishali Malhotra
Nupoor Maheshwari
Prashasti Mishra
 SECTION 11 A:STATEMENT
Powers of Labour court, 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, 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 a side order of discharge
or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen 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
circumstances may require.
 CONDITIONAL CLAUSE
The statement is applicable 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

Shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter

 ANALYSIS
Section makes material changes in the
jurisdiction of the labour courts and tribunals
constituted under this act

Come to conclusion that misconduct is not

established or even where the misconduct is held
to be proved, award a lesser punishment

Resulted in a marked transition in matters of

discipline
 PRIOR LAW & INTERPRETATION
If a proper enquiry has been held by the employer and the
finding of misconduct is supported by the evidence adduced
at enquiry, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in
judgment over the decision of the employer.
Interference will be justified only when the findings arrived
at the enquiry have no basis in evidence, or are made mala
fide or the punishment is harsh or oppressive.
This Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the
interest of employees.
The court adopts beneficial rule of construction.
If 2 constructions are possible, the one which is more
beneficial to the employees has to be preferred.
 PRIOR LAW & INTERPRETATION
The power of an industrial tribunal to interfere in cases
of dismissal of workmen by the company, are not
unlimited, and the tribunal does not act as a court of
appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the
management. It will interfere only:
When there is want of good faith
 Where it is case of victimization or unfair labor practice,
or upon a violation of principle of natural justice
 Where the management has been guilty of basic errors of
fact
 Where on the materials, the finding is completely baseless
 NO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION

It gives an indication that section 11A applies only

to disputes which are preferred for adjudication
after the section has come into force

The section does not apply to proceedings

instituted before 15 December, 1971
 AMBIT OF JURISDICTION
Where a domestic inquiry has been held, as also in cases
where the tribunal considers the matter on evidence
adducted before it for the first time, the satisfaction
under s 11A as regards the guilt or otherwise of the
workmen concerned, is that of the tribunal.

Even in cases where an inquiry has been held by an

employer and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the
tribunal can differ from that finding and hold that no
misconduct is proved.
 CIPLA LTD & ORS V RIPU DAMAN BHANOT
& ANOR
The findings of the labour court is that the order of the
termination is bad for the reason that it was not issued by
the Personnel Manager who is the appointing authority
of the respondent, but was issued by the General
Manager(Marketing), who was not competent

The labour court does not refer to service rules as ought

to have been done so, as it was pointed out to him that the
General Manager was an officer superior in rank to the
Personnel Manager, but the labour court brushed aside
the submission on the ground that nothing was brought
on record to indicate that General Manager(Marketing)
was superior in rank
Section 11A confers power to the labour court to evaluate
the severity of misconduct

Grants the power to assess whether the punishment

imposed by the employer is commensurate with the
gravity of misconduct

A tribunal can go into the question of the validity of the

order of termination even if probationer whose services
were dispensed with: without assigning any reason
before the expiration of the period of probation
 PUNISHMENT
Labor court has the jurisdiction and power to substitute
its measure of punishment in place of managerial wisdom
The labor court can consider whether the punishment
awarded is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct
When the order of termination of services is found to be
bad and reinstatement is directed, the wronged workmen is
ordinarily entitled to full back wages
Under section 11 A, a labor court has the jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of discharge or dismissal and direct
reinstatement with the percentage of back wages
A dismissal order becomes operative when the order is
made by an employer and not from the date of
confirmation of the labor court
 MATERIAL ON RECORD
The evidence taken by the management at the inquiry and
the proceedings of the inquiry or

The above evidence and in addition, any further evidence led

before the tribunal

Evidence placed before the tribunal for the first time in

support of the section taken by the employer as well as the
evidence adduced by the workmen
 CASE1: SHANKAR CHAKRAVARTI V
BRITANNIA BISCUIT CO LTD.

Issue: Question of implication of the proviso to sec 11A

The Conditional clause was not accepted by this court by
placing reliance on the reasoning indicated in the
decision in a domestic inquiry may be vitiated either for
non-compliance of rules of natural justice or for
perversity

Outcome: Disciplinary action taken on the basis of a

vitiated inquiry does not stand on a better footing than a
disciplinary action with no inquiry
DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CASE

Deals with the state at which employer should ask for

permission to adduce additional evidence to justify the
disciplinary action on merits

The Decision
Before the case is being closed, an opportunity to
adduce evidence would be given if a suitable request for
such an opportunity is made by the employer to the
tribunal