Triveni Structurals Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 25.6.87, Annexure 1 to the petition.

The facts of the case are that there was a meeting between the management of the Petitioner company and the representatives of the Workmen Association regarding pay scales, and while discussions were going on in the meeting on 22.4.82 the Respondent No. 3 got enraged, left his seat and caught hold of the collar of Sri V. Krishnan, Managing Director of the Company and dragged him from his chair. He also physically assaulted him and hurled abusive languages at him. On intervention of other officers present there, the Respondent No. 3 was prevented from committing any further assault on the Managing Director. Thereupon the Respondent No. 3 more agitated and he went to the door of the Board Room where a large number of employees had assembled already shouting slogans.

Respondent No. 3 instigated them to prevent the Managing Director and other officers from leaving the Board Room and kept them under confinement (gherao) unless the demands were fulfilled. In this manner, the Respondent No. 3 kept them under Gherao till about 4.45 p.m. when the police came and rescued them.

Respondent No. 3 was chargesheeted on 22.4.1984 for the above misconduct and he was placed under suspension. A true copy of the chargesheet is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. On 30.4.84 the T. S. L. Executives Association passed a resolution in a general body meeting and expressed their regret on the incident on 22.4.84 and they forwarded a copy of the resolution to the company/Petitioner by their letter dated 30.4.84, vide Annexure 3 to the petition. Again on 1.5.84 the said Association wrote a letter to the Petitioner company stating that they unconditionally condemn the said incident of 22.4.84 in which Respondent No. 3, was involved and the Association apologised for the said incident. A true copy of the letter dated 1.5.84 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 submitted his explanation by letter dated 15.5.1984 to the chargesheet and simply denied the charges without mentioning anything. A true copy of the explanation dated 15.5.84 is annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. In this letter Respondent No. 3 denied the charges against him. The explanation of Respondent No. 3 was not found satisfactory and as such a domestic enquiry was ordered to be held. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.12.84 holding that the Respondent No. 3 was guilty of the charges levelled against him. A true copy of the enquiry report dated 31.12.84 is Annexure 8 to the Petitioner. The said report shows that Respondent No. 3 was guilty of charge No. 1 in the chargesheet which is misbehaviour with and assaulting the Managing Director. Subsequent to the enquiry, the Respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the dismissal order dated 14.6.85, Annexure 9 to the petition. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Allahabad. The parties filed written statements and rejoinder statements before the Labour Court vide Annexures 11 to 14 to the writ petition.

By means of its award dated 25.6.87, the Labour Court held that the Respondent No. 3 had misbehaved with the Managing Director but since the executive association had apologised, the Respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in service but he will not get back salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and he will not be given any increment. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed in this Court.

Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Labour Court. In view of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is for the Tribunal to decide the quantum of punishment. However, in the present case, the facts are so shocking that no other punishment except dismissal was called for. In my opinion, the Labour Court has acted arbitrarily in reinstating the Respondent No. 3. The facts of the case found by the Enquiry Officer, and not disturbed by the Tribunal, are that Respondent No. 3 had caught hold of the collar of Sri V. Krishnan, the Managing Director, beat him, and dragged him from his chair. Can such a person be allowed to continue in the concern? In my opinion, the only answer can be in the negative. The basic principle which must be kept in mind is that the industry must be allowed to run, and, in my opinion, no industry can run if leniency is shown In such shocking cases of indiscipline and gross misbehaviour.

It is true that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment, but there are exceptional cases where this Court can interfere, particularly when it is found, as I find in this case, that the Labour Court has acted arbitrarily in granting reinstatement, vide U.P. State Textile Corporation Spinning Mills Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In my opinion, the facts of each case have to be seen, and if it is found that the worker had beaten and abused his superiors, the punishment of dismissal should be imposed, otherwise the organisation cannot run. As held by the Gujarat High Court in 1993 (23.) LLR 555, the power u/s 11A is to be exercised judicially when the Labour Court is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the misconduct. In the present case, dismissal is certainly not disproportionate to the offence, rather it was the only proper punishment. Hence, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the dismissal order in such a case of gross indiscipline and shocking misbehaviour by Respondent No 3.

It is argued by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 that this conduct was the sole misconduct committed by him during his service. In my opinion, certain misconducts are so serious that even a solitary offence warrants dismissal. The facts of the present case are so serious that, in my opinion, the only punishment called for in this case was dismissal. Hence the petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court dated 25.6.87 is set aside and the dismissal order passed by the Management is upheld. No order as to costs.