The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee can be justified based on evidence of low performance and non-compliance with service rules, and the court may not interfere with the punishment imposed unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges established.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Sri.a.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.C.K.Subramanya, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Prabhakar for respondent have appeared in person.

2. The material facts of the writ petition can be stated quite shortly as under:

It is stated that the second petitioner was working as a medical representative at Bangalore from 02.05.2005 under the respondent - Company. He joined on June 1995 at Tamil Nadu at Villipuram, transferred to Pondicherry in 2002 and to Bhatinda in 2005. after the union FMRaI's intervention he was transferred to Bangalore. Since he could not afford an independent accommodation, the second petitioner was staying at the guest house of the first petitioner at Bangalore. It is said that the same was not tolerated by the respondent - Company and it started harassing the second petitioner. It is also stated that a charge sheet was issued on 30.05.2007 to the second petitioner which was replied by him vide letter dated:06.06.2007.

The second petitioner was called for inquiry on 25.06.2007. It is averred that the second petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend and the inquiry was completed in one day i.e., on 25.06.2007 with all members being from the respondent - Company. Thereafter, the respondent - Company by its letter dated:06.08.2007 terminated the services of the second petitioner. The second petitioner filed an application in I.D.No.28/2007. The respondent - Company appeared and filed the counter. after due contest, the Labour Court rejected the petition vide order dated:27.04.2012.

Under these circumstances, the petitioners having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this Writ Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Sri.a.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order of the Labour Court is perverse, arbitrary and illegal.

Next, he submitted that several Industrial disputes were pending at the time of termination of the second petitioner. Hence, the respondent company- Management ought to have filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for short 'the act') seeking post facto approval of order of termination. Since the mandatory statutory provision has not been complied with by the respondent/ Company - Management, the dismissal is non-est in the eye of law and hence the second petitioner is entitled for reinstatement along with full back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

a further submission is made that the respondent/Company-Management did not hold inquiry before terminating the services, hence the termination is not justified on the ground of principles of natural justice.

It is submitted that the second petitioner was not provided any accommodation, hence he was constrained to stay at union office. The respondent/Company- Management took strong objection for staying in the union office. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the second petitioner was transferred frequently.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that there is victimization on the part of the respondent/company- Management in not providing accommodation, transport allowance, non-supply of study material for sales promotion etc. Counsel was very critical in his submission that the management has not done anything to help the second-petitioner in his work.

Learned counsel strenuously urged that having regard to the background of the nature of the charges and the pressure used by the respondent/company- Management to achieve their end, it is clear that the case on hand is a case of victimization.

It is also submitted that there is a discrimination and violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India and the second petitioner is deprived of legitimate expectation of better service conditions.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Labour Court is unsustainable in law. accordingly, he submitted t