Skip to content
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

  • About
    • Core Team
    • Public Relations & Media
    • Editorial Board [BLOG]
    • Advisory Board
  • OpEd
  • BLOG
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Business Law
    • Case Analysis
    • Contract Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Competition Law
    • Consumer Law
    • Civil Law
    • CLAT
    • Criminal Law
    • Cyber Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Evidence Law
    • Family Law
    • Health Law
    • Hindu Law
    • Human Rights Law
    • International Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law
    • Judiciary
    • Law of Contracts
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Sports Law
    • Technology Law
    • Tort Law
  • Interview
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Publish with Us
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

April 10, 2023April 10, 2023

Section 11 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947: Shield For Delinquent Workmen

By Sameena Sayyed [Student @ Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad (2025 Batch)]

[Image Source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2022/oct/17/1-l-building-workers-to-be-trained-2508928.html]

Introduction

A delinquent worker who is charged with misconduct is subject to the punishment specified in the organization’s Standing Rules. While the Standing Rules identify several forms of sanctions, there are no suitable criteria to match the punishment with the misconduct proven during the disciplinary hearings. Owing to this uncertainty, most of the time the punishment was not proportionate to the degree of the transgression, and this was also because of the employer’s unrestricted power. Due to this total power, the delinquent worker faced a maximum punishment of dismissal or discharge during disciplinary proceedings. This blog seeks to examine the disciplinary authority’s unfair attitude to punishment and how Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 functions as a shield to protect such victims from unfair dismissal or discharge.

Punishing delinquent workers against whom the alleged offenses are proven is an essential aspect of the disciplinary process. The disciplinary authority has the authority to discipline the delinquent employee by the organization’s Certified Standing Orders. In RM Parmar v. Gujarat (1982), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the main purpose of punishment is to correct the delinquent workman’s fault by making him more alert in the future and to serve as a warning to the other workmen to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. And the method to be used is the way that parents take when dealing with an erring or misguided child. Regrettably, most of the time, the punishment is startlingly unfair, and the delinquent worker is sacked. Such penalties may be administered by the disciplinary authority to victimize the delinquent worker, which constitutes an unfair labor practice under Labour Law.

The goal of the penalty is to keep employees from engaging in wrongdoing and to maintain organizational discipline. The punishment is meant to deter the delinquent worker from repeating the offense and to deter other employees from conducting similar acts. The disciplinary authority shall resort to the categories of punishment mentioned in the organization’s Certified Standing Rules or, in the absence of the same, the Model Standing Orders prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to decide the level of punishment. Warnings, fines, withholding increments, demotions, suspensions, discharges, and dismissals are all examples of penalties.

The goal of punishing the delinquent worker is to discourage him from doing such misconduct in the future, as well as to serve as a message to the other workers not to commit any misconduct. The employer has the authority to impose suitable punishment on any delinquent worker for the misconduct committed to maintaining industry discipline and industrial harmony. At the same time, it should be noted that the punishment imposed should not be shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct, which no reasonable employer would ever impose in identical conditions, as this would imply victimization or unfair labor practice, thereby invalidating the order of dismissal or discharge, but by enacting Section 11A, the legislature has transferred the employer’s discretion in punishing the adjudicator. In cases of discharge or dismissal, it is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to ultimately decide the degree of punishment for proven actions or omissions of misconduct. If the tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the authority not only to set aside the order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages but also to impose certain conditions as it deems fit and just and to provide relief to the worker, including the award of a lesser punishment instead of discharge or dismissal. 

The employer can only take a harsh stance as a last resort, not in the normal process of dealing with disciplinary concerns. Given the foregoing, it is suggested that:

  1. Reformative Theory: Implementing a reformative theory of punishment will result in smooth and favorable labour relations. Throughout this process, the employer should endeavor to modify the behavior of the individual worker in question without jeopardizing disciplinary actions. In other words, the method is a parent’s approach to an erring or misled child.
  2. Workman’s Prior Record or Conduct: A workman’s past conduct is a significant consideration in determining the punishment to be imposed on him for his transgression. In Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Mohmad Salim J Shaikh, the Gujarat High Court stated that when punishing a worker for indiscipline, the punitive authority must consider his socioeconomic background as well as his record. If the records are satisfactory, the workers should be handled leniently; nevertheless, if the worker has been involved similarly in the past, appropriate action should be taken.
  3. Punishment Quantity: The punishment should be neither too mild nor too severe. It should be adequate and proportionate to the offender’s guilt. It is established law that inflicting penalties for a confirmed act of misconduct is a matter for the disciplinary authority to decide, and industrial tribunals should typically not interfere with this decision.

Conclusion 

It is the employer’s job to not only act neutrally and reasonably to preserve a favorable industrial environment and smooth industrial relations but also to make the workers and the union recognize this. If the company is successful in this procedure, the union will usually back the employer’s choice to impose a penalty on any worker. As a result, the employer’s reasonable approach will lead to increased trust between the employer and the workers, increased worker morale, improved industrial relations, and the maintenance of industrial peace. It is important to state and conclude that it is the employer’s sole responsibility to be reasonable, unbiased, and neutral in all aspects and that workers are equally responsible to strengthen the employer’s hands by cooperating with the organization in terms of maintaining discipline and industrial peace to have higher productivity and profitability for the benefit of both the organization and the workers at large.

Post Views: 1,241

Related

Business Law Civil Law

Post navigation

Previous post
Next post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tweets by llbmania

Recent Posts

  • South Korea Emulates EU’s Model of Comprehensive AI Regulation
  • Access to Justice for Poor Prisoners – A Distant Reality!
  • Winzo Games Pvt Limited vs Google LLC [Case No. 42 of 2022, CCI]
  • Social Media and IP Protection in the Digital Landscape
  • Navigating the Constitutional Complexities of Section 166(3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA, 1988): Time-Barred Claims and condonation of delay

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
©2025 LL.B Mania | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes