Madras High Court
Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 8 August, 2002
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner management of the State Transport Corporation seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.85 of 1992, dated , 8.9.1994 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, and to quash the same.
2. According to the management, on 3.3.1985 at around 12 Noon, the second respondent/employee visited the Krishnagiri Branch office of the Corporation for the purpose of receiving his salary after consuming alcohol. He abused and threatened the Branch Manager with physical violence and also by using very vulgar words which cannot be put on print, as against the Branch Manager. In view of the said conduct a charge sheet dated 8.3.1985 was issued to him alleging that (1) he has abused and threatened the Branch Manager; (2) that he has acted irresponsibly and without sense of duty; (3) that he has caused indiscipline among the co-workers and (iv) that he has infringed the provisions of the Standing Orders.
3. After due explanation and enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer found that all charges were proved. Even though four witnesses had appeared for the enquiry, the employee did not choose to cross-examine the witness. The management on receipt of the findings of the enquiry and after careful consideration of the same, along with the past record of the petitioner, proposed to dismiss the second respondent and the second show-cause notice dated 22.4.1984 was issued. The second respondent submitted his explanation on 6.5.1985 which was however, found not satisfactory. With the result, the second respondent was dismissed from service.
4. The second respondent thereafter, approached the Labour Court and raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court though held that the charges were proved, directed reinstatement of the second respondent without back wages, but with continuity of service. Hence, the above writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management took me through the evidence as well as the award of the Labour Court and would contend that the second respondent had misbehaved and abused his superiors and had exhibited violent behaviour after having consuming alcohol and that he had also used worst vulgar expressions against his superiors. The Labour Court after having found that the allegations were true, erroneously exercised sympathy over the second respondent, directed reinstatement without back wages. Learned counsel contends that allowing the second respondent to rejoin duties, had only resulted in encouraging indiscipline and also detrimental to the maintenance of any control over the activities of the subordinates. There was absolutely no provocation for the behaviour of the second respondent and as such there are no grounds to ignore the violent behaviour of the second respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the second respondent however, very strenuously contends that the overall conduct of the employee had been taken out by the Labour Court and no interference was called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court had the opportunity to consider the evidence and had found fit to come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was totally disproportionate to the charges against the delinquent.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the judgment of M. Karpagavinayagam, J. in MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DIST. CONSUMER CO-OP WHOLESALE STORES LTD. v. PRESIDING OFFICER, L.C., COIMBATORE AND OTHERS (2000 Writ L.R., 224) in support of his contention that it was open to the Labour Court to modify the punishment of dismissal into a lesser punishment if it was found that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the charge held to be proved against the delinquent.
8. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of D. Raju, J. as he then was, in V.CO-OP.URBAN BANK LTD. v. LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE & ANR. (1995 (II) L.L.J., 173). The essence of the charge in that case was using indecorous language and the learned Judge held that the charge as well as explanation have to be viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances and also keeping in view of the action of the management which had driven the worker to resort to such behaviour. In the said circumstances, the learned Judge held that there was no error in the Labour Court having interfered with the quantum of punishment.
9. Further reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAMA KANI MISRA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (1982 (I) L.L.J., 472). That was also a case where the misconduct against the employee alleging that he used indiscreet, improper, abusive language was held to be proved. On considering the facts, the Court found that the extreme penalty of dismissal was not warranted.
10. In RAM KISHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (1996 (I) L.L.J., 982, the Supreme Court held that with reference to the charges of employees using abusive language against superiors, the charge must be understood in the environment in which the delinquent was situated and the circumstances leading to use of abusive language and that no straight jacket formula can be evolved as and when abusive language would warrant dismissal from service.
11. Per contra, while replying, learned counsel for the management contended that the facts of the present case do not provide any justification or provocation for the employee to have behaved in the manner as he did. Therefore, the conduct of the employee did not warrant any sympathetic treatment. To permit the second respondent to continue in employment would result in inducing indiscipline among the cadre of employees. Even if the Court was to take any sympathetic view, the employee could be paid a nominal compensation instead of reinstatement. In this context, the learned Judge refers to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENT LTD. v. I.CHARLES (1997 (4) L.L.N., 312). The Division Bench held that discipline and obedience should be the hallmark of every institution and as the workman had only 20 more months of service and in order to maintain orderliness and discipline, the Court awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- in view of reinstatement. The order of the learned single Judge ordering reinstatement of the employee, was set aside by the Division Bench.
12. Reference is also made to a judgment of another Division Bench in ESWARAN & SONS ENGINEERS (P) LTD. v. LABOUR COURT (1997 (4) L.L.N., 307). In that case, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was extreme, but as he had already attained the age of superannuation there was no question of directing reinstatement in service and as far as his entitlement to any compensation was concerned. The enquiry was relegated to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 33(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
13. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is true that the mere conduct of an employee of using abusive expression against the superiors under some sort of stress and strain cannot be held to be a serious offence so as to result in dismissal of the employee from service. It is also true that the Courts have recognised that impulsive conduct on the part of a worker who is not accustomed to cultured behaviour should not be viewed with any strictness so as to result in dismissal from service. On the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no justification or provocation for the behaviour of the delinquent/the second respondent. Without any provocation, he comes to the office in a fully drunk condition and starts abusing the Branch Manager in most filthiest language by referring to the parents of the Branch Manager, by using most abusive expression. It is not the contention of the delinquent that he was under any stress and strain. During the enquiry, the petitioner did not even choose to cross-examine the witness. Even before the Labour Court he has not chosen to give evidence or to state as to under what circumstances he had behaved in such a violent manner. In the above circumstances, the Labour Court having found that the charges were fully substantiated and that he should have been fully intoxicated and consequently must have abused the Branch Manager with filthy language, nevertheless had chosen to show sympathy in favour of the employee without disclosing any reason for such conclusions. The only reason stated is that punishment was excessive and affecting him and his family. But the said reasons alone cannot justify the conduct of the petitioner which positively results in inducing indiscipline among the staff of the Corporation.
14. However, considering the offer of the management itself that he may be kept out of service by awarding some compensation, I am inclined to hold that ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent/employee.
15. In the result, the punishment of dismissal awarded against the employee is confirmed, setting aside the award of the Labour Court and the petitioner is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner which shall be paid to the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered subject to the above conditions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed as unnecessary.