1 C.W.P. No. 2916 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2916 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: 12.5.2011 *** Dharam Pal & Ors. ..PETITIONERS VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Paramjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** JUDGMENT: The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 7.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) whereby the claim of the petitioner-workmen has been dismissed and their termination given effect by dint of order dated 31.10.1980(Annexure P-1) has been upheld. The petitioner-workmen, at one point of time, were the employees of respondent No.2-Management. Their services were terminated on 31.10.1980 following the lengthy charges of misconduct and indiscipline in the factory. They laid challenge to their termination by raising an industrial dispute. The management contested the claim of the workmen tooth and nail and justified their action of terminating their service. After the contest, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workmen were rightly terminated and upheld the order of their termination. Hence, the instant writ petition. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 2 C.W.P. No. 2916 of 1992 alleged enquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioners and they were never joined therein and hence, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice by the Management. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Labour Court has completely ignored these aspects of the matter and as such, the award is liable to be set aside. There is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The requirement of natural justice must depend upon the circumstances of the case, nature of enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with and so forth. The strict rule of evidence are not applicable in departmental enquiry and the standard of proof being different, it is sufficient to establish a charge by evidence, albeit not by any conjecture or surmises, acting upon which reasonably and objectively, a reasonable man could uphold the charge. As many as fifteen charges were levelled against the petitioners, including incitement to other workmen to stay in strike; willful and deliberate delay in production and also instigation to other workers to slow down the production; insubordination; provoking the other workmen to stage a Dharma; criminal intimidation to other workmen and agents of Management; causing of obstacle in movement of the Directors and other office bearers; putting dirt on the Incharge Corresponding Section; man-handling with the Directors etc. etc. The impugned order of termination dated 31.10.1980 is self- explanatory and carries each and every detail of the charges against the petitioners, which were found proved. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioners were duly served with the show cause notice at the gate of the mill, followed by the charge-sheet containing the charges on which the Management proposed to conduct an enquiry. It has also 3 C.W.P. No. 2916 of 1992 transpired that the show cause notice was published in the newspaper as well. But instead of defending themselves the petitioners did not join the enquiry proceedings and opted to remain away from the same. Once it has been found that the petitioners themselves opted not to join the enquiry, now they cannot say that the enquiry was conducted at their back. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that admittedly the petitioners were trade union leaders and hence, victimized at the behest of the Management. There is no substance in the aforesaid submission. The petitioners-workmen were heavily burdened to prove the plea of victimization, to which they have miserably failed. Mere allegations are not enough. Where in the opinion of the Labour Court, gross misconduct is established in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry, the plea of victimization will not carry any substance. A proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization as understood in industrial relations. Faced with the situation, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the punishment of termination is totally disproportionate to the levelled charges. In the case of New Shorrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao, 1997 (1) SCT 338 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considering the case of workman abusing his superior and threatening him held:- “The Labour Court, in the present case, having come to the conclusion that the finding of the departmental enquiry was legal and proper, the order of discharge was not by way of victimisation and that the respondent workman had seriously misbehaved and was thus guilty 4 C.W.P. No. 2916 of 1992 of misconduct ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was awarded, in the manner it did. This is not a case where the court could come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the employee's conduct and his past record.....” The aforesaid case relates to the abusing and threatening of superiors by the workman, but in the instant case there were as many as fifteen charges against the petitioners, which not only includes criminal intimidation, but manhandling with the Directors and other office bearers, as well, apart from others, which have been referred to above. Thus, it cannot be said that the punishment of termination is not proportionate with the charges against the petitioners. In the instant case, as discussed above, the principles of natural justice have adequately been complied with by the department. The entire facts and the evidence had adequately been considered and discussed by the Labour Court. While exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. In our view the findings are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. In these circumstances, it would not be just and proper to interfere with the award made by the Labour Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 12,2011 Jiten