Case: J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs. K.P. Agrawal

In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka [2006 (1) SCC 430 ], this Court stressed the need to give importance to discipline at the workplace. This Court observed: "This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach to the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the workplace/industrial undertakings received a setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity." 24. In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N. B. Narawade [2005 (3) SCC 134 ], this Court considered a case where a workman used abusive and filthy language against his superior officer, in the presence of his subordinates. He was terminated after conducting an inquiry. Labour Court found the punishment to be excessive and in exercise of power under section 11A of the ID Act, imposed a lesser punishment. This Court held that the misconduct cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment than termination. A similar view was taken in Orissa Cement vs. Adikand Sahu [1960 (1) LLJ 518 ] and New Shorrock Mills vs. Mahesh Bhai T Rao [1996 (6) SCC 590 ]. 25. In U.P. SRTC vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma [2000 (3) SCC 324 ], this Court held that the punishment of removal, for abusing and threatening another employee, was not shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. In that case also, only one among three charges was established and the Labour Court had interfered with the punishment, which was upheld by the High Court. Reversing such decision, this Court held: "The Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the appellant removing the respondent, from the service. The charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state, along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service when the charge against him stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified. It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice." 26. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd., vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate [2005 (2) SCC 489 ], M.P. Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma [2005 (3) SCC 401 ], and Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Corporation vs. Ghanshayam Sharma [2002 (1) LLJ 234], this Court held that power under section 11A of ID Act (or under similar provisions) cannot be used to interfere with the quantum of punishment, on irrational or extraneous factors, or on compassionate grounds. This Court also observed that though section 11A gives the jurisdiction and power to the labour court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, the discretion has to be used judiciously and not capriciously. This Court observed that harsh punishment wholly disproportionate the charge should be the criterion for interference. 27. In this case, we have already found that the charge established against the employee was a serious one. The Labour Court did not record a finding that the punishment was harsh or disproportionately excessive. It interfered with the punishment only on the ground that the employee had worked for four years without giving room for any such complaint. It ignored the seriousness of the misconduct. That was not warranted. The consistent view of this Court is that in the absence of a finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge established, the Labour Court should not interfere with the punishment. We, therefore, hold that the punishment of dismissal did not call for interference. Re: Question (iv) 28. It is true that when the employer challenged the award of the labour court and sought stay of the award, the High Court only stayed the order dated 29.6.1983 in regard to the back-wages but did not stay the award dated 08.3.1983 directing reinstatement; and that if he had been reinstated in 1983, he would have served till 31.3.1991 when he attained the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the employee made a submission before the High Court at the final hearing that in spite of the award directing reinstatement not being stayed, he was not reinstated. On the said submission, the High Court held that the employer had wilfully violated the lawful order and was not entitled to exercise of equitable discretion under Article 226/227. Firstly, the assumption that there was a lawful order or that there was wilful violation thereof is not sound. Further, the employer was not given an opportunity to explain why the employee was not reinstated. In fact, the contention of employer is that the first respondent did not report back to service, even though it was ready to reinstate him subject to final decision. Be that as it may. The mere fact that the first respondent was not reinstated in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court cannot result in dismissal of the writ petition challenging the award.Conclusion:

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. A careful reading of section 6(6) and the two decisions shows that the two decisions considered two different situations. In Tulsipur Sugar Company, this Court found that the reference to the Labour Court consisted of two parts. The award answered only the first part and had omitted to answer the second (consequential) part. While modifying the award on an application under section 6(6), the Labour Court neither upset nor altered any of the findings recorded in its original award, but only answered the second part of the reference, which had earlier been omitted. Therefore, this Court held that such correction was permissible. On the other hand in Imtiaz Hussain, the Labour Court, in its award had specifically refusedto the employee on the ground that his name was not in the list of permanent employees. But on an application under section 6(6), itthe issue and held that though his name was not in the list of permanent employees, he was entitled to payment of salary and allowances from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service. In Tulsipur Sugar Company, there was a correction of an omission which fell within section 6(6). In Imtiaz Hussain, there was a review of the original order which of course, was impermissible. We may now summarize the scope of section 6(6) of the Act thus:a) If there is an arithmetical or clerical or typographical error in the order, it can be corrected.b) Where the court had said something which it did not intend to say or omitted something which it intended to say, by reason of any accidental slip/omission on the part of the court, such inadvertent mistake can be corrected.c) The power cannot be exercised where the matter involves rehearing on merits, or reconsideration of questions of fact or law, or consideration of fresh material, or new arguments which were not advanced when the original order was made. Nor can the power be exercised to change the reasoning and conclusions.9. In this case, the reference to Labour Court consisted of two partswhether the termination of the workmen was proper and legal, andanswer was in the negative, then the benefits or compensation to which the workmen was entitled. The award originally made, answered the first part in the negative, but did not answer the consequential second part of the reference. In fact the award ended rather abruptly. On an application being made under section 6(6), the Labour Court recorded that it had accidentally omitted to answer the second part of the reference and rectified the omission by adding a paragraph. This case, therefore, squarely falls under Tulsipur Sugar (supra). We are of the view that the Labour Court had the power to amend the award.In this case, the Labour Court found that a charge against the employee in respect of a serious misconduct was proved. It, however, felt that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted and therefore, imposed a lesser punishment of withholding the two annual increments. In such circumstances, award of back wages was neither automatic nor consequential. In fact, back wages was not warranted at all.s takes us to the next question as to whether the Labour Court was justified at all in interfering with the punishment of dismissal.The Labour Court held that one serious charge was proved, another charge was not proved and in regard to the third charge gave benefit of doubt to the employee. The Labour Court also relied on the decisions of this Court in Rama Kant Misra vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1982 SC 952], wherein it was held that the punishment of dismissal was excessive where the employee was found to have uttered indecent words and used abusive language and substituted it by the lesser punishment of stoppage of two annual increments. The said decision depended on its special facts and may not apply to this case. The recent trend in regard to scope of interference with punishment in matters involving discipline at the workplace has been different. We may refer to some of the recent decisions.In this case, we have already found that the charge established against the employee was a serious one. The Labour Court did not record a finding that the punishment was harsh or disproportionately excessive. It interfered with the punishment only on the ground that the employee had worked for four years without giving room for any such complaint. It ignored the seriousness of the misconduct. That was not warranted. The consistent view of this Court is that in the absence of a finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge established, the Labour Court should not interfere with the punishment. We, therefore, hold that the punishment of dismissal did not call for interference.It is true that when the employer challenged the award of the labour court and sought stay of the award, the High Court only stayed the order dated 29.6.1983 in regard to thebut did not stay the award dated 08.3.1983 directing reinstatement; and that if he had been reinstated in 1983, he would have served till 31.3.1991 when he attained the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the employee made a submission before the High Court at the final hearing that in spite of the award directing reinstatement not being stayed, he was not reinstated. On the said submission, the High Court held that the employer had wilfully violated the lawful order and was not entitled to exercise of equitable discretion under Article 226/227. Firstly, the assumption that there was a lawful order or that there was wilful violation thereof is not sound. Further, the employer was not given an opportunity to explain why the employee was not reinstated. In fact, the contention of employer is that the first respondent did not report back to service, even though it was ready to reinstate him subject to final decision. Be that as it may. The mere fact that the first respondent was not reinstated in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court cannot result in dismissal of the writ petition challenging the award.