The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of adjudicatory authorities under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily, and the use of abusive language without any subsequent positive action cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service.

R.Jayasimha Babu, J.

The charge against the respondent workman found by the Labour Court to have been proved is that on 18.07.1987 around 2.00 a.m. the workman had, along with a Durwan, gone to the stockyard of the employer, had demanded entry, and on being refused by two other Durwans who were on duty, had abused and threatened them. The Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal which the employer had imposed by the order dated 02.01.1988 was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Exercising it's powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court by it's order dated 30.03.1993 reduced the penalty to loss of increment for one year without cumulative effect, and directed reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. That order of the Labour Court has been sustained by the learned single Judge. The back wages, however, has been reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The workman is not aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of back-wages.

2. The domestic enquiry revealed that one of the Durwans who had complained against the conduct of the delinquent workman had called the police without having informing his superiors though he had claimed that he had informed the superiors and with their permission, had summoned the police who had arrested the delinquent workman shortly after the incident. It may be noted here that the workman was released on bail within a few hours thereafter, and the prosecution that was subsequently launched ended in acquittal. The enquiry also revealed that the complainant Durwan had on an earlier occasion given another police complaint against this workman alleging that he had been slapped and that he had subsequently withdrawn the complaint. The delinquent workman had also produced documents at the enquiry showing that the complainant Durwan had been treated for mental illness at a prior point of time.

3. In the charge that was framed against the workman there was no mention that the workman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. One of the Durwans while deposing at the enquiry claimed that he had smelt alcohol when he had given drinking water to the workman who had asked for it. The enquiry officer however did not hold that the workman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.

4. The defence that was put-forth by the workman was that he was Secretary of the Union, that a Durwan named Bhadra Rao, who belonged to the Union, and who was to have been on duty at the stockyard from 10.00 pm to 06.00 am had come to him on the night of 17th and had sought his help to persuade the Durwans on duty in the stockyard to allow him enter the stockyard, as those Durwans had denied him entry on the ground that he had reported very late; that the delinquent had accompanied Bhadra Rao to stockyard at 01.00 am and had sought to persuade the Durwans on duty to allow Bhadra Rao to enter the stockyard and do duty. The workman denied that he had abused and threatened those Durwans.

5. The learned single Judge agreeing with the Labour Court held that abusive language had been used, but in the context of the facts found by the Labour Court, the misconduct could not be regarded as sufficiently grave to justify dismissal, and that the dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the employer vehemently urged before us that no workman has a right to abuse a co-worker and the misconduct of disorderly behaviour and intimidation of the co-employee warranted punishment of utmost severity. Counsel also submitted that in the event of the workman being found to be eligible for being reinstated, instead of reinstatement compensation should be awarded.

7. It is well settled that the power of adjudicatory authorities under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or whimsically, that reasons must be given for substituting a lesser punishment or compensa