Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 834
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR BENCH
Amitava Roy, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Pradeep Siroya - Appellant
Versus
M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd - Respondent
D.B. Civil Appeal No. 381 of 2008.
Decided On : 22-01-2014
For the Appellant:R.R. Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rajesh Joshi, Advocate.
The power of an industrial adjudicator to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not unlimited and can only be exercised in certain circumstances, such as when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, there are mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman warrants such a considerate initiative.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11A - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - VALIDITY - PENALTY - PROPORTIONALITY - INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATOR'S POWER TO INTERFERE - INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATOR'S DISCRETION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATOR'S APPROACH BASED ON SYMPATHY - NOT DECISIVE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Senior Assistant in the Store Department of Hindustan Zinc Limited, was served with a memorandum of charges for using abusive language, riotous and disorderly behavior, assaulting and threatening superiors, and willful violation of Standing Orders. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the appellant was found guilty and terminated from service. The appellant challenged the validity of the domestic enquiry and the penalty of termination before the Labour Court, which held the domestic enquiry to be invalid but modified the penalty to stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. The management challenged the Labour Court's decision before the High Court, which restored the penalty of termination.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the domestic enquiry was valid and that the penalty of termination of service was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant had used abusive words against his higher authorities and colleagues, displayed riotous and disorderly behavior, and assaulted and threatened his superior employees. The Court also held that the Labour Court had erred in exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by reducing the penalty based on sympathy alone.
Issues: 1. Whether the domestic enquiry was valid? 2. Whether the penalty of termination of service was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the appellant? 3. Whether the Labour Court erred in exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by reducing the penalty based on sympathy alone?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the domestic enquiry was valid as it was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. 2. The Court held that the penalty of termination of service was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant had used abusive words against his higher authorities and colleagues, displayed riotous and disorderly behavior, and assaulted and threatened his superior employees. 3. The Court held that the Labour Court had erred in exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by reducing the penalty based on sympathy alone. The Court held that the Labour Court should have considered the gravity of the misconduct and the impact of the penalty on the appellant's career before reducing the penalty.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty of termination of service imposed by the management.
(a) Use of abusive language for superior employees
(b) Riotous and disorderly behaviour with your colleagues in the office during office hours and thereby committing acts subversive of discipline.
(c) Assaulting and threatening superiors employee of the Company within the mine premises.
(d) Wilful violation of Standing Orders. The above charges are based on the following allegations:
It has been reported in writing by your colleagues that you are in habit of exhibiting disorderly behaviour and using abusive language in the office during the office hours for superiors.
You are also in habit of talking about castism and other unwanted affairs in the office. Whenever your colleagues advise you to stop such action you become angry and start threatening to them.
On 7.7.1990 you were on duty. At about 3.30 p.m. you were using abusive language for G.M. While doing so, your other colleagues like S/Shri Pradeep Kumar Yagnik, (Sr.Assistant, E.No.32289,) Shyam Sunder Paliwal (Sr.Assistant. E.No.32111) & Dinesh Chandra Daglia (Sr.Assistant, E.No.32315) advised you to stop such use of abusive language for superiors. Instead of taking advise of your colleagues in good spirit and used the following language before them.
"eSa v'kksd vxzoky vkSj vkj0lh0 HkVukxj ds ikys gq, dqRrksa dks vPNh rjg tkurk gwWa vkSj ;gkWa cSBus okys mu dqRrksa dks eSa ns[k ywaxkA ;s lkr uEcj dk twrk ns[kk fd ugha"
Thereafter, you took a paper weight in your one hand and single punch in the other hand and rushed to beat them.
Thereafter, these employees submitted a written complaint against you for necessary action. Since, these allegations were of serious nature, the undersigned decided to meet with you and enquire about the incident.
With this and in view, the undersigned visited personally the office of Shri P.L.Gehlot, Manager (Materials) (under whom you are working) at about 4.15 PM on 22.7.1990. I called Shri R.C.Bhatnagar, Manager (Materials) and you to enquire into the incident on 7.7.1990. While enquiring into the incident you started giving irrelevant reply and not talking to the points. As a result, I asked you to go to your seat. After going to your seat, you started threatening your other colleagues who had given the written complaints dated 9.7.1990. After the order of suspension was signed by the undersigned and handed over to Shri R.C.Bhatnagar, Manager (Materials) for serving the same to you.
It was reported that you refused to accept the order No.HZ L/(S&P)/Pers
