https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182472 Proved misconduct of sleeping during duty hours did not justify interference with dismissal where no factual or legal victimization was pleaded or established. The Court held that claims of unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 require a proper factual foundation, and that the provision relating to shockingly disproportionate punishment applies only in appropriate cases, particularly minor or technical misconduct. It also reaffirmed that industrial adjudication cannot substitute its view for the employer's disciplinary decision unless the penalty is wholly disproportionate. On the facts, the dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate and was restored. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2024 18:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182472 Proved misconduct of sleeping during duty hours did not justify interference with dismissal where no factual or legal victimization was pleaded or established. The Court held that claims of unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 require a proper factual foundation, and that the provision relating to shockingly disproportionate punishment applies only in appropriate cases, particularly minor or technical misconduct. It also reaffirmed that industrial adjudication cannot substitute its view for the employer's disciplinary decision unless the penalty is wholly disproportionate. On the facts, the dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate and was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182472