1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3636 OF 2008 M.K. Bhargude. ...Petitioner. Vs. Thermax Limited & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Ms.Hutoxi Tavadia with Mr. H.V. Kode for the Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr.Jayesh Desai i/b. M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the Respondents. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 19 , 2008. P.C.: The Petitioner was dismissed from service after being chargesheeted in a disciplinary enquiry for an act of misconduct. The charge against the Petitioner was that on 17th September 1988 when he was on duty in the second shift, he was requested by his Supervisor, A.B. Inamdar, to refrain from chatting with two co-workers and to resume work. This request was not heeded to and when the Petitioner was requested to go back to his work place again, he used abusive language against the Supervisor and attempted to assault 2 him. The charge of misconduct was held to be proved in the disciplinary enquiry and an order of dismissal was passed. The Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper; that the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer was sufficient to prove the misconduct and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court. 2. Four submissions have been urged in support of the challenge before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: (i) The first submission is that neither the Enquiry Officer, nor the Labour Court took cognizance of the fact that the incident had taken place on the shop floor of a factory where manufacturing activities were going on, when noise level was high and the abusive language could not have been heard by one of the witnesses, Vadje who was produced in evidence; (ii) The Enquiry Officer rejected three applications for site inspection; (iii) The management had an animus against the Petitioner who had deposed against it in disciplinary enquiries held against other co-workers; and 3 (iv) The Petitioner was victimised because he was an office bearer of the Union which had been opposed by the management. 3. Each of these submissions can now be taken up for consideration. 4. The first two submissions essentially deal with the same facets. The contention of the Petitioner is that manufacturing activities were going on in the shop floor of the factory and it was, therefore, not possible for witness Vadje to hear the alleged abusive words. It was urged that it was for this purpose that the Petitioner applied for spot inspection which was, however, not granted. Now whether or not the use of abusive language by the Petitioner against his Supervisor, A.B. Inamdar, was duly established, was a matter to be considered by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence on record. In this regard, there was the direct evidence of the Supervisor himself who deposed to the incident which had taken place when he had called upon the chargesheeted workman to refrain from leaving the work place and had requested him to go back to the work place. 4 The Supervisor deposed to the abusive words used by the chargesheeted workman. A co-worker, Vadje, was, according to the management, a witness to the entire incident. Vadje during the course of his examination deposed that he had witnessed the chargesheeted workman raising his right hand; the case of the management being that the chargesheeted workman had attempted to slap the Supervisor. Vadje also stated that he had however, not heard the abusive language being used. On the basis of this evidence, both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court relied upon the testimony of the Supervisor who deposed to the nature of the incident and to the use of abusive language. In a matter relating to a disciplinary enquiry, the law does not mandate that the testimony of the aggrieved or complaining worker should be corroborated in material particulars for, the standard of proof that is required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of a criminal trial. Ultimately, it was for the Labour Court to determine as to whether the Enquiry Officer had committed any error in relying upon the evidence of the Supervisor. The Labour Court has noted that as a matter of fact, the testimony of Vadje corroborates the evidence of the 5 Supervisor in so far as the attempt by the chargesheeted worker to assault the Supervisor was concerned. Therefore, this is a case where the charge of misconduct can, in law, be held to be substantiated by some credible and reliable evidence on record. That being the position, and both the Courts below having accepted the testimony of the Supervisor, it would not be permissible for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The question as to whether a spot inspection should have been ordered is, therefore, irrelevant because at the highest all that the Petitioner intended to establish was that Vadje could not have heard the abusive language being uttered. Vadje, as a matter of fact, has stated that he had not heard the exact words though he had witnessed the incident whereby the Petitioner had attempted to slap his Supervisor. Consequently, the denial of spot inspection was not a matter of prejudice to the Petitioner. 5. The contention that the management was actuated to victimise the Petitioner because he had deposed in certain domestic enquiries convened against other workers is without substance. 6 During the course of the evidence, the Petitioner admitted that those enquiries were held during the period 1984 to 1988 and even after those enquiries were held, the Petitioner was in service for over three years. The Labour Court also dealt with the question as to whether any attempt has been made to victimise the Petitioner because he was an office bearer of a Union. The Labour Court noted, for the reasons which have been explained in paragraph 14 of its judgment, that the testimony of the Petitioner did not inspire confidence. Moreover, the service record shows that the Petitioner had been punished for acts of misconduct even prior to the enquiry which was held against the other workers. In any event, it is now a well settled principle of law that once an act of misconduct is duly established on the basis of credible evidence in a disciplinary enquiry, the charge of victimization as such must fail. 6. As already noted earlier, the service record of the Petitioner was not free from blemish. The Petitioner had been penalized in the past for acts of misconduct. 7 7. For all these reasons, no case has been made out for interference by this Court with the judgment of the Industrial Court which confirms the dismissal of the complaint of unfair labour practice by the Labour Court. The petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. .....