Illegal dismissal for strike upheld by court, workmen reinstated with back wages.

The dismissal of eleven workmen by the appellant Company was set aside by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The Tribunal found the dismissal unjustified as it amounted to victimization for a one-day strike deemed legal. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with back wages, except for wages on the strike day. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that extreme punishments like dismissal should only be imposed when absolutely necessary. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reinstatement of the workmen with back wages.

---

---

Issues:
Dismissal of eleven workmen by the appellant Company and their reinstatement with back wages, justification of interference by the Tribunal with the punishment of dismissal, examination of the punishment imposed in relation to victimization or unfair labor practice.

Analysis:
The case involved the dismissal of eleven workmen by the appellant Company, which was set aside by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The dispute arose when the workmen did not attend work on January 2, 1961, assuming it to be a holiday, while the company claimed it was a working day due to pressure of work. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was unjustified as it amounted to victimization of employees for a one-day strike, which was not illegal. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with back wages for the workmen, except for wages on January 2, 1961.

Regarding the justification of the Tribunal's interference with the punishment of dismissal, it was argued that the Tribunal's role is limited to cases of lack of bona fides, victimization, or unfair labor practices by the employer. The principles established by previous cases emphasized that the Tribunal should not interfere with the punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate or shows victimization. In this case, the punishment of dismissal was found to be severe and out of proportion to the fault, leading to the conclusion that no reasonable employer would have imposed such a penalty. The Tribunal's interference with the punishment was deemed justified based on these grounds.

The appellant Company contended that the reference to all eleven workmen as "dismissed" was technically incorrect since only eight were recommended for dismissal. However, the Court held that this technicality did not warrant interference with the award. The Court also addressed the argument that the punishment imposed was solely within the employer's discretion, but emphasized that extreme punishments like dismissal should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary. The Court concluded that the punishment in this case was excessive and unreasonable, justifying the Tribunal's intervention. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the workmen with back wages.

---