IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1534 of 2007 (M/S) Brahmadutt Sharma S/o Shri D.D. Sharma ..……… Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and another ……… Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is the workman and is aggrieved by the denial of relief given by the Labour Court in its award. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that an incident took place on 4th May, 1991 in which the petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with a superior officer and not only used abusive language but caught hold of his shirt and vest and, in that scuffle, the shirt and vest was torn. This incident happened in front of everyone inside the workshop. The petitioner was accordingly chargesheeted and, since the allegation was not found satisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic inquiry. It is alleged that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided and that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In any case, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the Inquiry Report passed the order of termination. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a departmental appeal, which was also rejected and, thereafter, raised an industrial 2 dispute. The State Govt. referred the validity and legality of the order of the termination for adjudication before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court two issues were raised, namely, that the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer in the domestic inquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that that Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor rather than as an Inquiry Officer and that his approach in the proceedings indicated a pre-determined mind, namely, that he was committed to give a finding of guilt. It was also urged that in any case, the punishment awarded did not commensurate with the misconduct and that the use of abusive language was not deliberate but was indicative of lack of culture which the petitioner had, for which, he should not be punished so severely. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the matter which he availed. The Labour Court further held that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved before the Inquiry Officer. The Labour Court, after looking into all aspects of the matter, concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as of the disciplinary authority and held that the charge was serious warranting the order of termination. The Labour Court, consequently, declined to interfere in the order of punishment and declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.C. Pant submitted that the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer was not fair and that full opportunity was not provided and the 3 Labour Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. The learned counsel submitted that the Inquiry Officer had a pre- determined mind and that the inquiry conduced was a mere formality and the Labour Court ought to have examine this aspect while exercising the power u/S 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1982 SC 1552, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to substitute its measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it was satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, in which, it was held that the domestic inquiry proceedings is a quasi judicial proceedings and that the inquiry officer was required to perform a quasi judicial function and that the Inquiry Officer had a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the material brought on record by the parties. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 698, wherein the same principles that the inquiry should not be an empty formality was reiterated. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment so cited aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The judgments cited are not helpful to the case of the petitioner. Upon a perusal of the record and the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, an irresistible conclusion is drawn that full 4 opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer to defend himself. The court finds that ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner to produce his witnesses and clear any doubts with regard to the charges levelled against him. The court further finds that the Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the principles of natural justice was complied with by the Inquiry Officer. Such finding, given by the Labour Court, cannot be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the same was not perverse and is based on the appreciation of the evidence. In so far as the fairness of the Inquiry Officer is concerned, the Court does not find anything to indicate that the Inquiry Officer had a pre-determined mind to give a finding of guilt against the petitioner. From a perusal of the evidence that has been brought on record, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer has examined all aspects of the matter into detail and, only thereafter, concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question that the Inquiry Officer was not fair while conducting the inquiry proceedings. This takes the Court to the last ground, namely, as to whether the punishment awarded by the Labour Court commensurate with the misconduct committed by the workman. Use of abusive language in the facts and circumstances of a given case may not be sufficient to terminate the services of the workman as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra (Supra). Use of abusive language could show lack of culture and, merely the use of such language on one occasion would not lead to the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. 5 However, in the given case, the facts are slightly different and, therefore, distinguishable. Not only the workman used abusive language but also assaulted the superior officer inside the workshop during the working hour. There was a scuffle between the petitioner and the superior officer and, in that scuffle, the shirt and vest of the superior officer was torn. The action of the petitioner not only insulted the superior officer in the presence of the co-workers but also humiliated him. It should always be kept in mind that discipline is required to be maintained at all cost and at all times. The workman used abusive language and assaulted a superior officer. Such type of activity cannot be condoned. Consequently, the Labour Court having considered this matter found that the punishment awarded by the Management commensurated with the misconduct. The discretion exercised by the Labour Court was correct and in accodance with the provision of Section 6 (2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 10.06.2010 Shiv