Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Rajender Kumar Dixit

2. Worknal was working as a 'Peon-cuur-Messenger' at Bhopal Office of the malagement. A clornestic enquiry wa-s held against hitl on thc fbllowing charges:- "'fhat it hars been reported that on July 22, lggg at aboLrt 10.30 am whel Mr. Ravi shalna, Bralch Manager, Bhopal office askecl you to pick up the teacups lyirig on his table and to serve water to the newspapbr agent Mr. Nirlral Jain who ivas sitting with Mr. Sharrna. You not only refused to pickup teacups frotr the table of Mr. Ravi Shanna but also refused to serve water to Mr. Nirmal Jain. when Mr. Ravi sharnra askecl you t[6] behave properly and do the office work inter alia giving rvater to the office stafflguests and to pick up cups fu'our the table you told him that you rvill not do this a1d used abusive langr-rage I'or Mr. Ravi Sharrna. Whel Mr. Ravi Sharna askecl yor-r to keep quite a1d to maintain decdrum of the office yoll reportedll' 1s16 1t1ttt that that it was your office as well ancl you lvill behave thc vva)r. you woulcl like to and also challenged the adthority' of Branch. Manager to stop him ltom doilg so. You are also repor"tecl to have abusecl lbrnrer Executive Plesiclent - Mr. Naresh Mohau, - Personnel Manager Mr. A.C. Seth, the Union ancl its olfice bearers.

2. That you left the office at about 1 prn and came back at about 4 prn in drunken state and again used abusive language for the above mentioned officials. Your above acts of not cornplying with lawfrrl ancl reasotrable orders of yoLrr superior, conring to the oftlce premises in the druurken state atrd Llsing abusive language {br the olficials of the Cotupatrl' are " tnisconducts under paru I4(2)(a), 1a(2)(h), 14(2Xi) of Ccrtilied Standirrg Orders making you liable lbr disciplinary aclion..Q, w.P. (c)2s3t/2010 t[1] You are therefore, callecl upoll to show catlse within sevcn days of receipt of this charge sheet as to why disciplinaly aotiort should uot lre taken against yoll."

3. Elquiry was coucluctecl by, Sii. D.I(. Saxena, Aclvocate, appointed by the managelrent. Initially, workman participatecl in the enquiry br,rt subsequentll, stopped appearing. I-Iis attitLrde remained nou-cooperatirre clurilg.the enquiry which fact has been duly recorded in the encluiry report. Workman rvas afforcled opportunity to cross examine the rryituesses of the managetnent but he did not corne forward to cross examine the wituesses. Upbn appreciation of evidence Enquiry Officer concluclecl that charges against the workman \\iete clurly provecl. 4' worktnan was served tvith the copy o1'etrquirlr report ant'l rvas asked to subilit his explanation, if any. Workman submittecl his representation, however, explanatiott. given by him was n:t.for-rncl satisfactory. Accorclingly, vide order datecl 25tr'April, 2000 rnanagelnent dismissed the r,vorknran fi'om selvice u'ith effbct fi'om the aftbrnoott of April 29,2000.

5. Workman raisecl industrial dispute which was relbrred by the' Secretary (Labour) to Labour Court for adjuciicatiou irr the lbllorving tertrrs:- Rajender I(umar Dixit has beeu clisrlissed fi'om Managetnent illegally and/or unjustifiably, if so, -l,; I) "Whether Sirti service by the w.P. (c) 2s37/2010 l-r to what relief is he entitled and whart clirections are uecessary in this rcspect?" '

6. I[1] the statement of claim, workman allegecl that he r,vas appoiuted as a 'Peon-cum-Messenger' r,ide appointurent letter clatcd 26'l' Aplil, 1976 r,r,itlr effect fi'orn 1" April, 1976. I-Iis last drawn salary was Rs.(r800/ - per uronth. I-Ie was transferrecl toffadlas aud subseqr-rently to Bhopal' FIe r'vas harassecl b), the urapagemeflt. Enquirl, was condltctecl against hirl ort the charges that on 22'il ltrly,1999 lie was asked to pick Llp cups and plates Uo: the. table but he refused to do so, inastnuch as abusecl superiors itt clruril<e[1] state. Enquiry r.vas conclucted in gross violation of principles of rratural jLrstice. In fact on22"d.h-rly, 1999 lie rvas asked to lcave olfice ancl therea{ler he was not allowecl to reslulle his cluties. IJis services wel'e illegally terminerted vide letter dated 25tl' April, 2000 i.r'ith efitct lioni 29th April,2000.

7. I[1] the written statement, management stated that at the time clf dismissal fi'om service, workman w-as employecl in Bhoiral Offrce, inasmr-ich as, the dornestic enquiry was conducted at Bliopal, thus, oause of action, if any, arose at Ilhopal within the Siate of Maclhya Pradesli. Aocordingly. relerence made by the Governrnent of NCl' o[ Dellti wets withor;t iuriscliciion. Wori<nran was transf'errecl due to bona l'iclc aclnrittistrative (? v I w.P. (c)2s37/20ra Page 4 of L[6] exigencies a1d in accordance with the terns and conditions of his enrployment. It rvas clenied that worknan was asked to perfoilI artry sttch cluties rvhich were 1ot part of his normal assigned clurties. Picking up of cups ancl serving tea anrl water were nortnal dr.rties of a 'Peou' rvhich workmau could not have refusecl to perfolm, inastnuch lt, he misbehaved with his superiors. It is the workrnan who refusecl to perlbrrn lris assigned duties' Elqr,riry rryas held in accordance with the Standing Orders aucl rules o1' natural justice were duly followed. Workman had failed to participate'in the eriquiry on Btl' January, 2000 clespite due notice ancl without anlr reasonable cause, thus, was rightly proceedcd ex-par[e. Worknan r,vas rigtrtly clisnrisscii ti-om service on tl're basis of proven serious tniscottcluct.'

8. In rejoinder, workman denied the averments as coutained in the rvritten.statement ancl reiterated whatever he had statecl in the statetlent of clairn. g, 01 the pleadings of the parLies following issttcs \,vel'e fi-trured by the industrial Acliudicator:- "(i) Whether this Court has r1o territ6rial.iurrisdiction decide the prescnt dispute?

(ii) whether a fair and proper enquiry was not conclucted accordance with principles of natural justice?

(iii) As per the terms of Reference." w.P. (c)2s3712010 t t0 in I,/ $ L )+ i0. Parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. Upon scrutiny.of eviclence aclducecl by the parties Industrial Acljudicator, r,ide orcler clated 13tr' Decernber, 2010, has helcl that enquiry was couducted by following prilciples of natural.justice, inasmuch os, opportunity was grantecl to workman to defbnd himseif. By placing reliance on the nnswers given by the rvorkman, in his cross examination, that cluring the course of cnquiry he usecl to sign the enquiry proceedings whenever he appeared, iuasmuch as. enquily was conductecl in I-Iindi at his request, Industrial Acljuclicator has concluded that due opportunity was given to the rvorkntan, iltasuruch as, principles of natural jr-rstice wel'e followed. Enqr-rir[1], proceediugs ivere also. pelused and it was collcJuded that worlalar chose not to appear in the enquiry proceedings on 8"'.lanuary, 2000. Hotrye:\,et', he llarticipatccl in the proceeclings concluctecl on 1l'l'March,2000 and 16'l'Marsh,2000. Condr-rct of the workman indicatecl flrat hc participated in the enquiry olf ancl ott as per his own whirns and fancy. Since petitioner had stoppecl appearing cluring the enquiry proceedings. he cannot take a plea that statemeuts o1' managernent's witnesses wel'e recorclecl behind his bacl<. Inclurstrial Adjuclicator was also oJ'the view that Court has only to see that enquirl, officer had followed. the broaci principles of r-ratural justice ancl it cannot sit w.P. (c)2s37/2010 f! /gover the findings of enquiry officer as a court of appeal. [t was lirrther colcluded that eviclence ol[1] rccorcl was sufficieut ertough to prclve guilt of workrnan, therefore, encpriry proceedings were not rritiated, iuasuruch as, liable to bc upheld.

1 L Despite returning the finding that enquiry was conductecl by lbllowing the principles of natural justioe and was not vitiated, Ittdustrial Actjudicator, while determiniug the clirestion of propriety of punishmertt arvarclecl to the 'vvorkman, venturecl to sift anci weigh the evidctrce adcluced before tJre lincluirl, Ojl'lcer threaclbarJ aricl held that charge ol' r,vorkurattt etttet'ing in office in drunl<en state and misbehaving rryith the sultcriors renraiuecl urproved. It r,vas held that only charge proved against the in,orlu'nan was of insubordination and for surch rnild misconduct removal fi'orn service ivas trot wzrrranted. lnch-rstrial Ad.judicator Llpon appreciation of eviclcttce aclcltrc:ccl during the enquiry proceeclings obser.red that Ehrquiry Oftcer hacl overlooked tlre fact that testimonies of Sh. Ravi Shartr:ra. Sh. Avinash I(handclkar, Mr. Lockesh DLrbey turd Ms. Shruti Shanua \\/ere olte siclecJ since they rvere not cross-exanrined by the petitioner. ln Lhc charrgc-sheet, it was mentioned that rvorkman abused Sh. Ravi Sharma, Branch Manager. Sh. Naresh Mohan, fonner Executive President, Sh. A.C. Sethi, Persounel w.P. (c)2s37/2O1O Page 7 of L[6] /1 Malager as also hurlecl abuses against the Union ancl its ofllce bearers. Hou,ever, saicl officialS \ /ere not exauriuecl. WOrknian \ryzis not evell medically examiued to fincl out whether he u'as druttk or not. It was concluded that for smarll charge of insuborclination punishtnent of disrlissal liom service rvas disproportionate. 12.- lt is trite lau, thaL Labour Cor-rrt or Industrial 'l'ribunal hls only to go ilto the question of validity of enquily in the sellse tliat it has to be seeu as to whether the sane was conclucted by followirtg rules and regulatiotls governing the ser.,,ice conclitions of the employee and by broadly following principles of natural justice. Labour Court or Inclustrial Tribunal has uot to sift ancl u,eigh the evidence aclduced before the Enquiry Ollicer atrcl to substitute its fi1di1g over" and above the hnclings returned by the lJnquir'1' Olficer. Ilch-rstrial Tribunal cannot act as an Appellate Clotrrt. Aclt:qtrarcy o1' eviclence or for that matter its reliable nature canuot be macle a ground to interfere with the conclusions reached by thc Encl-riry Off-icer. lndustrial Tribunal or the Labour Court will interfere with the enquiry repolt'only if it finds that the same is based on no evidence or is perverse in thc seuse that no reasonable and pnrcient persorl can arrive at such a fincling on ihe basis ol ^| ! t 2e evidence adducecl. In State Bank of Bikaner ancl.Taiptrr vs' Nemi Chand Nalu,aya AII{ 201 i SC 1 93 1, Supreme Cortrt has held thus:- "It is now weil settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic elqr"rily, uor interfere on the grouncl that another view is possible on the material on 1ecorcl. If the elquiry has been fairly and properly helcl ancl the findings are base.d on evidence, the cluestion of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature ol'the evidence will not be gror-urds for ilterferilg with the fildings in departmental enquir:ies. Therefore, courts will not iuterflere *ith th" findings of fact recorcled in departmental euquiries, except r,vhere such finclings are based on tlo evidence or \l'hefe they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could'have errrivecl at such conclusion or' finding, on the rnaterial on record. Clourts rvill hoi,vever interfere with the findings in disciplinary mattcrs, if principles of natural.iustice or stalutory regulations have bcen violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, callriciolrs, tuala fide or based on exttaueous consideratiotls".

13. Ip this case Incltrstrial'Adjudicator, uporl appreciatioll of eviclence ancl ou a perusal of enquiry proceedings, had alreacly returnecl a categorical fi1cli1g vide orcier datecl 13tl' December, 2010 that enclr-riry u'as cottductcd in a fair ald proper maru1ef and by following principles of nzrtural justice, ilasmuch as, was basecl onthe evicleuce aclcluced before the Enquiry Officer ancl u,as not vitiated, Enquiry report was uphelcl. In such alt etrentuality, it was not open for the Industrial AdjLrdicator to again sift and weigh the eviclence lead during the enquiry and return a fincling that the only charge,.. 'l {1 proved against the r,vorkman \ryas tliat of insubordilatiol' In vieq' of orcler cl'atecl 13tl'December, 2010 only point r,vhich remained to be considerecl was regarclilg quatttum of purishment. Thus, the subsequent linding of Ilclustrial Acluclicator that only charge of insr-rborclination tvas barred is coptrary to the scttled prilciples o1'la'uv apd is perverse'

14. A perusal of record makes it clear that principles of natural justice were <luly followecl during the enquiry proceedings, iuasurttch ets, rvorkmau rn,as given ample opporftuiity to defencl himself whiclr he did not avail lbr wirich he has to blame himself. I-Ie participated in tlie proceeditrgs olf ancl on. At his reqlrest, enqtriry proceedings wefe conducted in l-Iindi. Tliis itself sr-rggest that Errquify Officer,.who was an inclepen"detit pcrsou, hacl actecl fairly. Enquiry Otficer clicl not act in haste arld ercljoLrrued l'he pro-beedings on lnol'e than one clate, inasmuclt as, perniitted lhe workman tcl irarticipate i[1] the enquis, in spite of the fact that he had beel proceecled exparte. Flowever, attitudc of workman remainecl all aloltg llon-cooperative. I.Ie r,vas given opporLtrnity to cross examine the witnesses but he dicl ttot avail the same. Accorclingly, I am of the view that Industrial Adjudicator vide orcier dateci 13tl'Decenber, 2010 had rightly held tltat encluirv was helcl w.P. (c) 2s37/20\o I _.ir* L[1] ip a fair lllanllel' anc,l by lollorving the principles of naturaI justice aticl rvas ill consonance u,ith'evidencc ancl was not vitiated.

15. Once it had been helcl by him that enquiry was held tairly ancl by following principles of natural justice and enquiry report rvas ltot vitiatecl the orily qtiestion remainecl to lrc considerecl was, as to rryhether the puiishmenl awarcled to the worftman vvas shockingly <iisproportionate to thc tlliscoucluct as zrllegecl and proved on all the cliarges.

16. ht Management of tl're Federation of Indian Chambcrs & Cotnruerce ancl lrrdustry ancl Their Woktnan, Shri R.K. Mittal, |gZl-IL LLJ SC 630, Supreme Court held that punishment lbr misconduct is a matter for thc lltanageilent to decide anc{ i['there is justificatior"r for ptrtrishtueut itlposecl, the Tribunal should not interfbre; but r,vhere the pttnishmeut it so disproportionate that no reasonable employer would ever have imposed it irl like circumstances, the Tlibunal may treat the imposition of sttch pr.rnishruent as itself showing victimization or turl'air labour practice. 'ln Hincl Constrr,rction and Engineering Cornpany Ltcl. \/s. J'hcir Workmetr 1965-I, LLJ SC.462, Strpreme Court helcl that fribunal is not reqLrlrecl ttr consicler the propriety clr adequacy of the punishrneut or rvhether it is excessive or too severe. But where the putrishrnent is shockingll' lF w.P. (c)2s37/20ro Page 1L of 16 '{ ar disproportionate regarcl being had to the particular conduct and the past record or is such, as no t'easonable employer woulcl ever impose in like ciriumstances, the tribunal may treat imposition of such putiishment as itsell' shorving victimizaticln or unfair labour practice.

17. In U.p. State Road 'fransport Cqrporatiou ancl Ors. vs. Strbhaslt chanclra sharrna a1d ors. (2000) I LLJ 1i17 SC, Suprerne coLrrtheldthat the Labour Court was not justifiecl in interfering rvith the order of renovzrl ti-om service when the charge against the emplclyee stood proved. '{'he jr-rrisclictiol vested with tlre Labour Court to interfere with the punishtleut is uot to be exercised capricior"tsll' and arbitrarily' It is necessal'y' in a case where the Labour Court fincls the charge proved, for a cottclusion to be airrivecl that the punishment u,as shockingly clisproportioriale to the trature of the charge fbund proved, before it coulcl interf'ere to reduce the punishntent' a