The Industrial Court erred in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the company and confirmed by the Labour Court because the acts of misconduct proved against the workmen were grave and the order of dismissal was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

R.A. Jahagirdar, J.

1. The facts in all these petitions are common and they should be mentioned before one proceeds to consider the questions arising in them separately. Rajesh Dyeing and Bleaching Works Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the company'", is engaged in the business of, as its name suggests, textile processing. Two workers, Saved Noor Razvi and Maniram Anantoo, were in the employment of the company. They were charged with acts of misconduct constituting (1) riotous and disorderly behaviour on the premises of the Undertaking and (2) commission of an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. They were charged with these acts of misconduct on the basis of an incident which took place on 22nd of May 1975 when both the workers were on duty.

2. It was the case of the company that at the time and on the day aforesaid Syed Noor Razvi was mixing a tablet containing narcotic substance with tobacco when the Security Officer, one Vijay Sahani, seized the same and put it in his pocket. Maniram, the other worker, grabbed the Security Officer and made an attempt to forcibly take out the tablet from his pant-pocket. The Security Officer came to the office of the factory for the purpose of reporting the incident when Sayed Noor Razvi accosted him in the office and asked him to either return the tablet or to pay him Re. 1 being the cost of that tablet. On the refusal of the Security Officer to return the tablet Sayed Noor Razvi abused the Security Officer in filthy language and threatened him with physical assault outside the factory premises.

3. Pursuant to the charge-sheets issued to the two workmen, inquiries were held and the inquiry officer found that the charges levelled against the workmen were proved on the basis of the evidence which was led before him. On the basis of the finding recorded by the inquiry officer both the workmen were dismissed by the company by the order dated 23rd June, 1975.

4. Sayed Noor Razvi filed an application, being Application (LCB) No. 620 of 1975, while Maniram Anantoo filed Application (LCB) 619 of 1975 in the 5th Labour Court at Bombay u/s 78 read with Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. By the said applications the two workmen challenged the orders of their dismissal from service as illegal and improper and prayed that the company be directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and full back wages. The Labour Court found that the inquiry was proper and legal and. allowed the parties to lead evidence on the other issues, which was done. By its judgment and order dated 18th of January 1980 the Labour Court dismissed Application (LCB) No. 620 of 1975. While doing so the Labour Court accepted the findings of the inquiry officer, which findings were not displaced by any evidence led on behalf of the workmen, that Sayed Noor Razvi was mixing some narcotic substance with tobacco which was seized by the Security Officer Sahani. The attempt of the other workman Maniram to retrieve it failed. There after Saved asked the Security Officer to return the substance or to pay him Re.1 being the cost of the substance seized. On the Security Officer refusing to do so Sayed abused him and also threatened him with injury to his person outside the factory premises.

5. While considering the submissions on behalf of the workmen that the punishment of dismissal awarded to them was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct committed by them, the learned Judge of the Labour Court noticed that both the charges proved against the workmen at the inquiry were of a serious nature and it would not be proper to take a lenient view. Therefore he thought that no interference was called for in the order of dismissal. Accordingly he dismissed the applications by his order dated 18th January 1980.

6. In the case of the other workman Maniram, the finding was much more serious. The inquiry officer had held him guilty of both the charges levelled a