Case: Bharat Forge Co. Ltd Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate

of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohan Lal Gupta and others (2000) 9 SCC 521 ), opined: "The learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal mainly contended on two counts. On the first, it has been very strenuously contended as to whether the Labour Court can alter the punishment awarded to Respondent 1 workman upon recording a finding that the charges have duly been proved and secondly, it has been contended as to whether the employee who has admittedly misappropriated the property of the employer Corporation can be allowed to be retained in service.These two issues are undoubtedly of some importance. The workman concerned during the course of inquiry in no uncertain terms admitted his guilt though however he has stated that the same amounted to mere negligence and not a deliberate act. But the Labour Court being the fact finding court came to the conclusion that the charges stood proved and we are not in a position to reassess the factual situation at this stage of the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution. The finding as regards the proof of charges shall have to be taken as accepted and we do not see any perversity therein having regard to the state of facts more so by reason of acceptance of charge by the delinquent employee." 24. Yet again in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others (2000) 3 SCC 324), upon noticing Colour-Chem Ltd. (supra), this Court observed: "The charge against the respondent was that he, in a drunken state, along with the 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 the 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 a miscarriage of justice." 25. Each case, therefore, has to be decided on its own facts. 26. We have noticed hereinbefore that all the courts have answered the question as regard commission of misconduct by the Respondent in one voice. The Labour Court evidently had taken recourse to Clause (g) of Item I of Schedule IV of the Act which ex facie was inapplicable. The said provisions clearly postulates two situations, namely (i) the misconduct should be of minor or technical character, and (ii) the punishment is a shockingly disproportionate without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee. The past record of service, therefore, is a relevant factor for considering as to whether the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate or not. As has been noticed hereinbefore, before the learned Single Judge an attempt on the part of the Respondent to take recourse to Clause (b) of Item (1) of Schedule IV failed. In absence of any plea of factual victimization and furthermore in absence of any foundational fact having been laid down for arriving at a conclusion of the legal victimization, in our opinion the Division Bench committed a manifest error in invoking Clause (a) thereof.27. The Division Bench, thus, was not correct in relying on Colour-Chem Ltd. (supra) and failed to notice the distinguishing features thereof. A decision, as is well-known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. (See Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya and others (2004) 8 SCC 270 )28. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra), this Court observed: ".... In such a case the employee, found guilty, cannot be equated with a victim or a scapegoat and the plea of victimization as a defence will fall flat. This is why once, in the opinion of the tribunal a gross misconduct is established, as required, on legal evidence either in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization will not carry the case of the employee any further. A proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization as understood in industrial relations. This is not to say that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of dismissal on proof of victimization." 29. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Respondent to plead and prove the acts of victimization. He failed to do so.30. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, must act within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Although its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms of the provisions of the statute and no other.31. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a compassionate ground. 32. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sohan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 218 ), it has been held that it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence unless it is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Such is not the case herein.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. The jurisdiction of a Labour Court was, therefore, confined to make an enquiry and pass an order thereupon as to whether the Appellant herein had committed an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Section 26 read with the relevant provisions of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act.11. Before we proceed to determine the merit of the decision rendered by the Division Bench, it is useful to notice that the act of misconduct committed by the Respondent was admitted by him in terms of his letter dated 26.8.It is also pertinent to note that the Enquiry Officer in his report categorically stated as to how the Respondent had been conducting himself during the domesticNo sufficient or cogent reason, in our opinion, was assigned by the learned Labour Court as to why a lenient view should be taken. The Revisional Court while allowing the Revision Application of the Appellant and dismissing the Revision Application of the Respondent came to the conclusion that as the misconduct has been proved and relying on the decision of this Court in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra) where it was opined that a proved misconduct is anti thesis of victimization in the industrialState Road Transport Corpn. vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others (2000) 3 SCCWe have noticed hereinbefore that all the courts have answered the question as regard commission of misconduct by the Respondent in one voice. The Labour Court evidently had taken recourse to Clause (g) of Item I of Schedule IV of the Act which ex facie was inapplicable. The said provisions clearly postulates two situations, namely (i) the misconduct should be of minor or technical character, and (ii) the punishment is a shockingly disproportionate without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee. The past record of service, therefore, is a relevant factor for considering as to whether the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate or not. As has been noticed hereinbefore, before the learned Single Judge an attempt on the part of the Respondent to take recourse to Clause (b) of Item (1) of Schedule IV failed. In absence of any plea of factual victimization and furthermore in absence of any foundational fact having been laid down for arriving at a conclusion of the legal victimization, in our opinion the Division Bench committed a manifest error in invoking Clause (a) thereof.27. The Division Bench, thus, was not correct in relying on Colour-Chem Ltd. (supra) and failed to notice the distinguishing features thereof. A decision, as is well-known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. (See Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya and others (2004) 8 SCC 270 )28. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra), this CourtIn such a case the employee, found guilty, cannot be equated with a victim or a scapegoat and the plea of victimization as a defence will fall flat. This is why once, in the opinion of the tribunal a gross misconduct is established, as required, on legal evidence either in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization will not carry the case of the employee any further. A proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization as understood in industrial relations. This is not to say that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of dismissal on proof of victimization.It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Respondent to plead and prove the acts of victimization. He failed to do so.30. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, must act within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Although its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms of the provisions of the statute and no other.31. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a compassionate ground.