Civil Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2011 Date of decision:-13.7.2011 Raja Ram ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge is to the order dated 02.9.2008 (Annexure P-10) whereby preliminary issue was decided against the workman that the domestic inquiry was held fair and proper and order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-11) whereby reference has been decided against the workman by vide the impugned Award. Mr. Jaswant Jain, counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 02.9.2008 on the ground that the inquiry officer Shri H.K. Relan was biased against the petitioner. The workman had raised an objection regarding his appointment and the inquiry held by him cannot be taken into consideration against the workman. This argument has been repelled by placing upon the judgment of the Supreme Court General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union versus Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., and others 2006 II CLR 959 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the allegation of bias as to the specifically pleaded and proved. In the present case the workman had made Civil Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2011 -2- an application for change of inquiry officer and led no evidence as to why the inquiry officer is biased. On the other hand vide letter dated 27.6.1979 b(Ex.M- 6) the factory manager has assured the workman that full opportunity will be given to him to cross-examine the witnesses. The workman failed to join the inquiry. He led no evidence to prove examination except his oral disposition. Since the workman was served with a notice and chosen not to appear after he was informed to participate in the inquiry proceedings on 14.5.1979, 25.5.1979, 08.6.1979, 26.6.1979 and 04.7.1979. The inquiry was proceeded ex-parte and could not be said to be vitiated. Mr. Jaswant Jain, counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the workman was not supplied copy of inquiry report and list of documents alongwith the charge-sheet. This argument does not help the petitioner as despite sending him numerous letters to join the inquiry, the workman has not participated in the inquiry proceedings. No prejudice has been caused to the workman by not supplying the inquiry report and list of documents. By not participating in the very proceedings the allegation of the workman that he was victimized by the management holds no grounds. The order dated 02.9.2008 does not suffer from any infirmity. Once the inquiry conducted by the Management is held to be fair and proper, the order of termination of services of workman is justified and in order. The workman was not entitled to be heard for inflicting the punishment, once the inquiry was held to be fair and proper. The allegation against the petitioner was that he refused to obey the instructions of Shri Chand Ram, who was his superior, regarding setting the machines in order, caught hold of his neck and slapped him and threatened to see him outside the factory. These facts have been duly proved by the inquiry officer. The punishment imposed is Civil Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2011 -3- not shockingly disproportionate assaulting the superior in workplace would amount to an act of gross indiscipline. This punishment is not disproportionate to the allegation and interference with quantum of punishment is not called for. The scope of judicial review of the punishment has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments as reported V. Ramana Versus A.P. State Road Transport Corporation 2006(1) SCC L & S 69 wherein in regarding scope of interference with quantum of punishment it is observed that “The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decisions unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sence that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury was the Court would not go into correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decisions for that of administrator. The scope of judicial review of limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decisions.” It is further held in same judgment that “To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.” and 2006 I-Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 133 in the case of Hombe Gowde Educational Trust and another Versus State of Karnataka and others wherein in para 19 it is held “Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an Act of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse Civil Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2011 -4- the head of the institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock one's conscience.” The writ petition is dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE