Back
1999 Supreme(Bom) 1030
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
N.J. PANDYA, J.
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Tukaram Ganpat Marathe and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1995
Decided on : 14-01-1999
For the Petitioners: Sri R.A. Dada and Ms Snehal Paranjape
For the Respondents: Sri S.K. Talsania and Sri Kiran Bapat
The power of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer under S. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 11A - POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO INTERFERE WITH PUNISHMENT - SCOPE AND EXTENT - UNRULY BEHAVIOUR OF EMPLOYEE CREATING ATMOSPHERE OF THREAT AND INSECURITY IN OFFICE - DISMISSAL HELD JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The employee, along with a co-worker, was found guilty of disobeying instructions, leaving the workplace without permission, and assaulting a co-worker. The employer dismissed the employee, but the Industrial Tribunal reinstated him with 50% back-wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry officer's findings were supported by the evidence and that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the punishment. The court held that the employee's behavior created an atmosphere of threat and insecurity in the office and that dismissal was the only way to maintain discipline.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in interfering with the punishment imposed by the employer. 2. Whether the employee's behavior created an atmosphere of threat and insecurity in the office.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer under S. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 2. The employee's behavior, including disobeying instructions, leaving the workplace without permission, and assaulting a co-worker, created an atmosphere of threat and insecurity in the office, justifying the dismissal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the employer's petition and set aside the Tribunal's order. The order of dismissal passed by the employer was restored.
JUDGMENT :
1. These two petitions are filed by the employer and employee respectively against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, given in Reference No. CGIT-1/87/1990 on 16th of December 1994.
2. T.C. Marathe (hereinafter referred to as the said employee) along with another co-worker, was facing departmental proceedings before the enquiry officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the employer (hereinafter referred to as such).
(i) The incidents related to what had happened on 18 November 1982 and 19 November 1982. That the said employee with his co-worker - Mandavkar, working as hamal of the employer, at the relevant time were supposed to carry out packing and unpacking work in the stationery department. On 18 November 1982 they were asked to pack the stationery in the boxes to be sent to the Parbhani Branch office and in that regard, in spite of the instructions, they have failed to pick and pack the stationery in the boxes and could not send it to Parbhani. A serious view was taken by the department that the stationery ought to have reached Parbhani office as intended by the immediate superiors of the said employees. Virtually on 19 November 1982, in the afternoon only the said two employees attended the said work. All the three charges, therefore, in regard to the incidents of 18 November 1982 and 19 November 1982, relating to non-sending of packages to Parbhani office, in fact, would amount to one incident, namely, disobeying the instructions of sending the packages to Parbhani. So far as spreading over of the incident on 19 November 1982 is concerned, it relates to the fact that the said employee without permission, had left the place of work with tools and they were found nearby the office of the Divisional Manager. In spite of sending messages to them to attend the work, they did not attend to it but left in the afternoon. When they gathered nearby the office of the Divisional Manager they also used hot words to him and went away.
(ii) That on the very day, i.e., 19 November 1982, the second incident occurred, involving one Sri Kalbhor, a record clerk. The allegations are that the said two employees went to Kalbhor, whom they found attending the work which was supposed to have been done by them and taking umbrage they picked up quarrel with Kalbhor. At that time in the hands of Marathe, the delinquent employee, there was a saw which he was supposed to use as tool in doing his work of packing the boxes. But the allegation is that Kalbhor was assaulted by the said Marathe, who was having the saw in his hand and in the process of assault the shirt of Kalbhor was torn by the saw which was in the hands of Marathe and they started quarreling in unruly manner in raised voices.
3. At the end of the enquiry, three charges were held to be established and the disciplinary authority, after having accepted the enquiry report, proceeded to punish the said employee and accordingly ordered the punishment of dismissal of the said employee. Before that the show-cause notice, was already issued. In reply to the show cause, although a submission was made by the said employee with regard to his difficulty in not completing the work and prayed that full opportunity of being heard be given to him but the same was of no avail and the proposed punishment of dismissal from the service was finally awarded to the said employee.
4. This has resulted in filing departmental Appeal and thereafter, making representations to the highest authority by the said employee. After failing before these two authorities, the matter was finally brought before the Industrial Tribunal 1 through the conciliation proceedings.
5. The Industrial Tribunal in its award, dated 16 December 1994, found that the enquiry was properly conducted. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer is possible of being arrived at on the basis of the material evidence available before him and no perversi
