1. Appeal against High Court order modifying a Labour Court award regarding the removal of a workman from service for misconduct. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : S.P.Bharucha
Mahendra Nissan Allwyns Limited
Versus
M.P.Siddappa
Case No. : 5750 of 1998
Date of Decision : 11/13/98
Misconduct involving the abuse and threatening of senior management and unauthorized entry into administrative areas constitutes serious misconduct, justifying the punishment of dismissal from service as proportionate.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Law - Proportionality of punishment - Removal from service - Misconduct involving abuse and threats to senior management and unauthorized entry into administrative premises - Charges found to be of a serious nature - Punishment of dismissal held to be proportionate. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The respondent workman was removed from service following an inquiry, a decision subsequently confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court modified this order to reinstatement without continuity of service or back wages, concluding that the charges were not serious and the punishment was disproportionate. The proven charges included leading other workmen out of the factory premises despite challenges from security, unauthorized entry into the administrative building and the office of a senior manager, using filthy language to abuse and threaten senior management, and misbehaving with several executives.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges were of a serious nature. The actions of leading workmen out of the premises, entering restricted administrative areas, and the abuse and threatening of senior management are grave offenses that justify dismissal from service.
Issues: Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct leveled against the workman.
Ratio Decidendi: Misconduct that includes inciting other workers, unauthorized entry into restricted administrative areas, and the use of abusive and threatening language toward senior executives is sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal from service, and such punishment is not disproportionate. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and industrial law
-
industrial disputes
-
disciplinary proceedings
- misconduct and punishment (Para 4)
-
disciplinary proceedings
-
industrial disputes
Table of Contents
2. Whether the charges of misconduct were serious enough to justify dismissal or if the punishment was disproportionate to the charges. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Leading workmen into administrative areas and abusing or threatening senior management constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal from service. (Para 4 )
4. Misconduct involving the unauthorized leading of workmen into administrative offices and the abuse of senior executives warrants dismissal from service. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and the writ petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. When is the punishment of dismissal from service considered proportionate to the charges of misconduct?
Dismissal is proportionate when the misconduct is of a serious nature, such as leading workmen into administrative buildings and using filthy language to abuse and threaten senior management and executives. (Para 4 )
7. Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority?
A court may interfere if the punishment is disproportionate to the charges; however, if the charges are found to be serious, the punishment of dismissal remains unaltered. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was made on a writ petition filed by the first respondent workman against the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, which had confirmed the order of removal of service of the first respondent from the employment of the appellant. The High Court said:
"We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court. The punishment imposed against the petitioner workman is not proportionate to the charges levelled against him. Moreover, the charges levelled against the petitioner workman are not serious in nature. Instead of removing the petitioner from service as per the orders of the disciplinary authority, the Labour Court should have modified the order to that of reinstatement ofthe petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages (appointment afresh)."
(3) THE High Court found no fault with the finding that the charges had been proved. It found that the charges were not serious in nature and the punishment that was imposed was disproportionate.
(4) WE do not agree with the High Court. The charges are of a serious nature. The first respondent was found to have led out workmen from the factory premises regardless of the challenge by the Security Guard. Along with these workmen the first respondent entered the administrative building of the appellant and the room of the Deputy General Manager. The Deputy General Manager and Manager (Personnel) were abused in filthy language and threatened, examples of which have been given. Misbehaviour was also proved against the first respondent in his conduct with five executives of the appellants. If these are not serious charges against a workman worthy of his dismissal from service, we do not know what can be. The High Court was quite wrong in the conclusion that it reached and in the order that it passed. The punishment imposed against the respondent must remain unaltered.
(5) THE appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.
