Sandeep V. Marne JUDGMENT
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. These are cross Petitions filed by the employer and the workman challenging the award dated 8 January 2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court, Mumbai. By the impugned Award, the Reference relating to dismissal of employee from service has been answered in affirmative and punishment of dismissal imposed on him on 10 September 2013 has been set aside by replacing the same with penalty of withholding of two increments from 10 September 2013. The Labour Court has further directed the employer to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and other consequential benefits alongwith 50% backwages from 11 September 2013. The employer is aggrieved by the entire Award and has filed Writ Petition No.7238 of 2023. On the other hand, the workman is aggrieved by the Award to the limited extent of denial of 50% backwages and imposition of penalty of withholding of two increments and had filed Writ Petition No. 5284 of 2023.
2. M/s. Globe Theaters Private Limited (employer) is a private limited company engaged in the business of exhibition of films and runs a famous movie theater named 'Regal Cinema' in Mumbai. Mr. Joseph Barretto (workman) was employed on the post of Operator at Regal Cinema with effect from 15 June 1980. Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the workman by service of charge-sheet dated 6 November 2012. It was alleged that on 2 November 2012 the workman entered in the booking counter of the Cinema and threatened Mr. Krishna Babu Gumala, a temporary Booking Clerk stating that he was taking away the jobs of Union members and that the workman threatened said temporary Booking Clerk that he would be beaten severely outside the gate in the event of he continuing to report for work. Accordingly following misconduct was alleged as per Model Standing Orders:
"1. Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behavior on the premises of the Establishment.
2. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the Establishment."
3. The workman denied the charges and submitted his Reply dated 8 November 2012. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 16 August 2013 holding that the charges leveled against the workman were proved. The workman submitted his reply to the report of the Enquiry Officer on 5 September 2013. The employer thereafter passed order dated 10 September 2013 terminating the services of the workman by way of dismissal with effect from 11 September 2013.
4. At the behest of the workman reference relating to his dismissal and reinstatement was made by the appropriate Government to Labour Court, Mumbai, which was numbered as Reference (IDA) No.144 of 2015.
5. After hearing both the sides, Labour Court passed order on preliminary issues on 30 January 2019 holding that the enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court also held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to deliver final Award dated 8 January 2020 holding that the penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and set aside the dismissal order directing it to be replaced by the punishment of withholding of two increments to be imposed with effect from 10 September 2013. The Labour Court has further directed the employer reinstate the workman alongwith 50% backwages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
6. I have heard Ms. Chowdhary, the learned counsel appearing for the workman who has challenged the Award to the limited extent of denial of 50% backwages and imposition of penalty as withholding of two increments. According to Ms. Chowdhary, even though the charge of giving threat to a temporary employee is assumed to be proved........