Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd Vs. S.Rajulu [2008] INSC 575 (3 April 2008)
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4735 OF 2006 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
2. The respondent, who was working as a Packer with the appellant company
was put under suspension vide order dated 26th April 1981. A charge-sheet dated
28th April 1981 was thereafter served upon him alleging that on 24th April 1981
he had been found wasting his time eating biscuits near the store room and on
being questioned by his superior, had answered insolently and told him that he
too was dishonest and that he was not afraid to face the consequences. The
respondent was then taken to one Moses, a senior officer, but he continued to
use foul and filthy language and threatened Moses that if he made a report
against him, he would break his legs. The respondent was also served a second
charge-sheet on 11th August 1981 for another misconduct on the allegation that
on 10th August 1981 he had misbehaved with one Mrs.
Sasireka and used filthy language against her. A domestic enquiry was
thereafter held against the respondent which indicted him on both charges. The
management accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and took a tentative
decision to impose the punishment of dismissal under the Standing Orders. A
show-cause dated 13th October 1981 (Annexure P- 3) was also issued to him
calling upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid punishment should not be
imposed on him.
The respondent furnished his reply which was found unsatisfactory and vide
order dated 5th November 1981 he was dismissed from service on account of the
gravity of misconduct and for having used abusive language, vide order appended
as Annexure P-4. The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute. The
Government declined to refer the dispute for further adjudication by its order
dated 23rd August 1982. The respondent thereafter moved a representation before
the Government on 1st September 1986 and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court vide order dated 10th August 1987. The Labour Court rendered its award on
30th March 1993 holding that the disciplinary action initiated against the
respondent was not an act of victimization, that the charges raised against the
respondent stood proved and that the finding of the enquiry officer was
justified ( a copy of the award has been appended as Annexure P-5). The
respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned
Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 9th February 2001 observed that
the misconduct even if held to be proved really amounted to the use of
"unparliamentary language"
and was trivial in nature and as the punishment of dismissal had shocked
"the conscience of the Court" and as the punishing authority had
without notice to the respondent workman, taken his antecedents into account,
he directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages ( a copy
of this order has been appended as Annexure P-7). An appeal filed by the
appellant-management to the Division Bench was also dismissed vide order dated
18th April 2005. The present appeal has been filed as a consequence thereof. 3. While issuing notice in this matter on 19th October 2005, an ad-interim
stay was also granted to the appellant. Mr. R.Sundravardhan, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised
three basic arguments before us in the course of the hearing (1) the learned
Single Judge having found that the domestic enquiry against the workman was properly
conducted and that the workman indeed was guilty of misbehaviour, there was no
justification in interfering with the quantum of the punishment in the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, (2) that the High
Court was wrong in its finding that the punishing authority was not justified
in taking into account the antecedents of the workman respondent as he had not
been given the opportunity to rebut these allegations, and (3) very grave
charges had been leveled against the respondent which included the use of
filthy language in the presence of a lady supervisor and no interference ought
to have been made in the writ jurisdiction. In support of the various pleas
raised by him, Mr. Sundravardhan has relied upon (2005) 3 SCC 134 Mahindra and
Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Narawade, (2006) 7 SCC 212 State Bank of India & Ors.
v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde and (1963) (S) 1 SCR 648 State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra.
4. Mr. S.Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent has,
however, supported the judgment of the High Court and has pointed out that the
enquiry conducted against the respondent was a biased one as the observation of
the enquiry officer that the evidence given by the supervisor was to be
preferred vis-`-vis the evidence given by respondent workman was, on the face
of it, unacceptable as each piece of evidence had to be examined as per its
merit. He has accordingly urged that the observation clearly pointed to the
fact that the respondent had not been given a fair hearing and in this view of
the matter, no interference was called for.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record. The Division Bench has held that the workman had not been given the
requisite material that was required by him to prepare his defence more
particular as his antecedents had been taken into account depicting him as
incorrigible, though he had not been given any opportunity to rebut these
charges. The High Court has also found that the allegations against the workman
even if taken to be true were trivial and could not justify an order of
dismissal from service.
The judgments cited by the learned counsel do not adequately meet the issues
raised by the High Court. The questions of fact which have been decided by the
High Court call for no interference by this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution. We also find that the workman has been out of employment since
the year 1981 and despite succeeding before the single bench of the High Court
on 9th February 2001 he has not yet been reinstated in service because of the
interim order passed in this litigation. We had accordingly and at the very
outset, suggested to Mr. Sundravardhan that on account of the situation as now
existed, it would, perhaps, be appropriate that the respondent be given a
compensation package rather than an order of reinstatement. The learned counsel
stated that the management was willing to give no more than Rs.5,00,000/-
towards that package. The respondent, on the othe`r hand who was present in
Court, insisted that he was not interested in the compensation and would prefer
that the orders of the High Court be implemented in letter and spirit. We are
of the opinion that consequent upon the bitter relations between the parties
and as even the High Court has found the charges proved though 'trivial' and
the fact that the respondent has not been on duty with the appellant-management
since the year 1981, it would be inappropriate to foist a cantankerous and
abrasive workman on it. We accordingly dismiss the appeal but direct that
instead of reinstatement the respondent would be entitled to the payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation as full and final settlement with respect to his
entire claim.
6. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
