IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment of dismissal for misconduct of abusing and threatening superiors may not be justified in all cases.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service of the appellant is disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved against the appellant and whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below need to be interfered with are the points falling for consideration in this appeal.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-The appellant was working as a semi-skilled workman since 15.8.1986 in the respondent-company, namely, M/s. L.M.L. Limited (Scooter Unit), Kanpur. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet on 18.4.1992 stating that on that date, he threw jute/cotton waste balls hitting the face of Laxman Sharma, Foreman in the said company and on objecting to the same, the appellant is alleged to have further abused him with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences outside the premises of their factory. On 25.4.1992, the appellant submitted an apology letter stating that he had thrown piece of jute which fell on Foreman Laxman Sharma by mistake and seeking pardon for the same. A departmental inquiry was conducted on 25.5.1992 and the appellant was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as for putting forth his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and on the basis of the enquiry report, the appellant was dismissed from the services of the company by an order dated 24.6.1992.

4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Adjudication No.178/1994 before the Labour Court, Kanpur.

The Labour Court relied upon the letter of apology dated 25.4.1992 and by its award dated 17.9.1996, held that the termination of services of the appellant was justified. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and vide its order dated 24.9.2012, High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the award passed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave. This Court has issued notice limited to the question of quantum of punishment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that charges against the appellant are minor charges of alleged throwing of jute/cotton waste balls and even assuming that the charges had been proved, dismissal from service for such a minor act of misdemeanor is harsh and disproportionate and prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

6. The first limb of contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the discretionary power exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to set aside the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be exercised judiciously with care and caution and before exercising the said discretion, the finding that order of discharge or dismissal was not justified is necessary. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 185. Learned counsel for the respondent then contended that the appellant is a habitual offender and on a previous occasion, on 18.7.1988 the appellant had misbehaved with a co-worker whereby a warning notice had been issued to the appellant and the appellant assured never to repeat such an act. It was submitted that inspite of such warning the appellant was again defiant and having regard to the gravity of charges, the Management imposed punishment of dismissal from service and Labour Court rightly held that such punishment was justified.

7. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of the respondent was that use of abusive language against the Foreman is a serious misconduct and punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. It was submitted that any leniency towards such misconduct