The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in disciplinary actions to ensure that penalties correspond with the severity of misconduct.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR Case No.191/1999 (CIS No.1775/2014) by which the termination order of the petitioner dated 18.02.1998 has been upheld and the same was found to be valid and proper.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Machinist on 01.01.1983, and he continued on the said post till 18.02.1998. Counsel submits that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Machinist to Operator in Viscose department vide order dated 21.06.1997, but the petitioner made a request to the respondent to assign him the work of Machinist or provide adequate training to avoid any mishap. Counsel submits that no heed was paid to the said request of the petitioner and thereafter, two different charge-sheets were served upon the him, one with the allegation that in-spite of his transfer on 24.06.1997, he failed to join till 01.07.1997 and accordingly, he remained absent from service for seven days and the other charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with the allegation that he failed to perform the duties of Operator and instigated the other employees of the respondent-employer to not to work. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheets, the respondent took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner vide order dated 18.02.1998. Counsel submits that both the enquiries have been conducted by one Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the said Enquiry, the impugned order of termination of service of the petitioner has been passed. Counsel submits that the reason of absence and the reason for not working as Operator was well explained by the petitioner before the authorities, but those reasons were not taken into account and consequently, the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-employer opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the act of the petitioner amounts to misconduct, for which a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein subsequently the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and accordingly, after due consideration, a decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the aforesaid termination order dated 18.02.1998 was assailed by the petitioner by way of raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') before the Labour Court, wherein, he himself accepted that the domestic enquiry was fair and he did not oppose the same. Counsel submits that even an order was passed by the Labour Court on 20.11.2019 in this regard and the case was confined to the proportionate punishment. Counsel submits that once the petitioner has accepted the domestic enquiry being fair, there is no reason or occasion available with him to question the said enquiry here before this Court. Counsel submits that the another aspect of the matter i.e. proportionate punishment, was taken into account by the Labour Court and it was found that the act and conduct of the petitioner was such, which warranted his termination and accordingly, the Labour Court by passing a reasoned order has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Machinist and he had worked on the said post for a period of almost 15 years and thereafter, his services were transferred to other department/ wing/ branch of the respondent-employer, wherein, he was asked to do the operational work. It appears