Patna High Court
Employers In Relation To The Jamadoba ... vs Their Workmen And Anr. on 2 February, 1971
JUDGMENT S.N.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the employer in relation to the Jamadoba Colliery of Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award dated the 19th of December, 1968 (Annexure 1 to the application) given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-No. 2 at Dhanbad in Reference No. 121 of 1967.
2. The Central Government by its order No. 2/27/66-LRII dated the 4th of March, 1966 referred the following dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication:
Whether the dismissal of Shri Ramdeo, miner, by the management of the Jamadoba Colliery of Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, with effect from the 15th June, 1965, was justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
The reference was ultimately transferred to the file of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad and was numbered as Reference 121 of 1967. Sri Ramdeo, the workman, was working as a miner in Jamadoba Colliery of Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited. Before the Tribunal he put forward the case that on the 21st of April, 1965, he went to the office of Sri. A.S. Gandhi, the Assistant Manager, with an application for 28 days leave. When the Assistant Manager granted him leave only for 7 days, he protested because his wife was seriously ill and his home village was at a considerable distance in the district of Allahabad, He left the application on the table of the Assistant Manager saying that the leave granted to him was not acceptable to him. The employer, however, issued a charge-sheet against him on false allegations, held improper domestic enquiry and dismissed him illegally. The case of the employer, on the other hand, was that the Assistant Manager had granted the workman seven days' leave because of the exigency of Work but the workman misbehaved with him by shouting at him and tearing away the leave application and throwing the same on his face. Before the Tribunal some witnesses were examined on behalf of both sides and documents were produced. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was properly conducted and the finding of the enquiry officer was based on the evidence laid before it. The Tribunal, however, took the view that the maximum punishment which was awarded to the workman by the management was severe and as such unjustified. Accordingly it gave the award that the workman should be reinstated to his original position with immediate effect and the period from the 15th of June, 1965, till the date of the award would be treated as a period of his suspension without wages and other emoluments.
3. Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised two contentions. In the first place, he submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded by the management when it has not been found by it that the punishment given to the workman is so unduly severe as to amount to victimisation. Secondly, he contended that the punishment which has been given by the Tribunal is itself illegal being contrary to Clause 19(5), of the Certified Standing Orders of the company.
4. In support of his first contention, learned Counsel referred to the decisions in the cases of Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha 1960--II L.L.J. 56; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen 1963--II L.L.J. 78 and Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. v. Ram Prabesh Singh 1963-I L.L.J. 291. The first case is not very relevant. In the second case Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen and Anr. 1963--II L.L.J. 78 it was observed that "Courts do come across cases where the dismissal of an employee may appear to the Court to be so unreasonably severe as to give rise to an inference that it is a case of victimisation, but this inference cannot arise in every case where the Court feels that the order is a little too severe". The third case, however, supports the contention of learned Counsel. In that case it was held that in a case of proved misconduct, normally the imposition of a penalty is within the discretion of the management. There may be, however, cases where the punishment of dismissal for the misconduct proved may be so unconscionable or so grossly out of proportion to the nature of the offence that the Tribunal may be able to draw an inference of victimisation merely from the punishment inflicted.
5. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Verma (No. 2,) appearing for the workmen, relied on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sitapore Sugar Works Ltd. Garaul v. State of Bihar , in support of his contention that the Tribunal has absolute discretion to interfere with the question of punishment. In that case it was observed that if the Tribunal found that it ought not to interfere with the findings of the management that the charge had been proved, even then the Tribunal must next consider whether it should. interfere with the punishment awarded by the management. It was also observed that the Tribunal had the absolute discretion to decide what punishment, in the circumstances of each particular case, should be meted out to the guilty workman. The above observations, no doubt, support the contention of Mr. Verma but in the same case it was subsequently observed as follows:
...the management, with the knowledge and experience of the problems, which confronted in the day to day working of the concern, ordinarily ought to have the right to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, but its decision is liable to be reversed if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment is so unjust that remedy is called for in the interest of justice.
The above observation made in that case lends support to. the argument, advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal should interfere with the punishment only in exceptional cases. In the instant case the Tribunal has accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the workman behaved in a disorderly and in decent manner with the Assistant Manager. The Tribunal, has simply stated without giving any reason that the punishment awarded to the workman was out of proportion for the misconduct committed by him. The Tribunal has not expressed the view anywhere in its order that the punishment of dismissal is unconscionable or grossly out of proportion to the nature of the offence committed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not legally justified in interfering with the order of punishment of dismissal awarded by the management.
6. As I uphold the first contention which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with the second contention.
7. This application must be allowed on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the workman.
8. In the result, this application is allowed and the award dated the 19th of December, 1968, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 is quashed by a writ of certiorari. There will be no order as to costs.
Kanhaiyaji, J.
9. I agree.