IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (218) CWP No. 2404 of 1997 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 10.02.2025 M/s J.M.P. Industries, Focal Point, Jalandhar ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Akashdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is against the Award dated

26.11.1996 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- workman had remained absent from performing his duty and keeping in view the said absence, he was dismissed from service on 28.08.1987 but Labour Court vide its Award has stipulated that although, the said termination is valid but the same is liable to be set-aside on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the view taken by the Labour Court that even the act of absence of the employee from his duty should not have led to dismissal along with the direction to reinstate the said employee with 1/3rd back wages is incorrect and the said Award is liable to be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the workman was not being allowed to join starting from 28.01.1987 as a result of which, the respondent-workman raised a dispute before the competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and during the pendency of the litigation before the authority concerned vide order dated 28.08.1987, he was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that once the Tribunal has expressed its view that the punishment is excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved, no interference is called for by this Court and the present petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2023 (@ SLP(C) NO. 7645 OF 2018) titled as Union of India and Ors. versus Const Sunil Kumar, decided on 19.01.2023, the punishment imposed upon an employee can only be modified by the Court in case the same is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-

“6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or

227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

7. In the present case, it is a conceded position that the respondent- workman was proceeded against by the petitioner qua the misconduct by concluding departmental proceedings and consequently, in the departmental enquiry in which the Workman did not associate the charge of absence from duty was duly proved, the impugned order terminating the services was passed on