Case: Nicholas Piramal India Ltd Vs. Harisingh

2. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:The respondent was employed as a workman at the drug manufacturing unit of thePiramal India Ltd. (for short, situated at Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh. The Company issued two charge sheets dated 26.2.2000 and 13.3.2000 against him, alleging that he has violated and disregarded the orders of his senior officers and intentionally slowed down the work under process and made less production by adoptingtactics which is a grave misconduct on the part of theunder Clause 12(1)(d) of The M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (for short. The respondent denied the charges levelled against him by the appellant and submitted his reply to theNot being satisfied with the same, the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated by the disciplinary authority against him. In the domestic enquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer found thewas guilty of the misconduct after holding that the charges levelled against him were proved which finding of fact is recorded by him in the enquiry report. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority of theand it served the second show cause notice on the respondent on 31.5.2001 along with the copy of the enquiry report, the same did not refer to any of his past service record. Thesubmitted his written explanation to the second show cause notice, denying the findings of the Inquiry Officer by giving point wise reply to the findings of the enquiry report. On 30.7.2001 an order of dismissal was passed by thedismissing him from his service, after accepting the findings of the domestic Inquiry Officer in his report and not considering the reply of theto the said show cause notice.3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed against theny, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by filing application No. 421 of 2001 under Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short), questioning the correctness of the order of dismissal dated 30.7.2001, passed by the Disciplinary Authority of thefrom his services and prayed to set aside the same and reinstate him in the service to the said post with all the consequential benefits including back wages.4. The Labour Court, on the basis of the rival legal and factual contentions urged on behalf of the parties, framed the following issues for itsWhether the domestic enquiry conducted against the applicant is illegal, malafide and liable to be quashed?ii) Whether the applicant is the guilty of misconduct as described in theWhether the applicant is unemployed after termination of service?iv) Relief and costs.The enquiry report was produced before the Labour Court by theThe Labour Court, after adverting to the relevant Clause 12(1)(d)&(m) of the SSO and onof the material evidence on record in exercise of its original jurisdiction examined the correctness of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the charges levelled against the workman which is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and answered issue No. 2 in the affirmative as well holding that the alleged misconduct of the workman is proved and held that the same does not warrant interference by the Labour Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction and power conferred under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act, which is equivalent to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for shortto substitute the punishment of dismissal order passed against the workman as the charges levelled against him have been proved during the enquiry proceedings and the same is held to be valid in law by answering the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry. Further, it has held on the merits of the case afterof material evidence on record that the penalty of dismissal awarded on theis legal and valid in law which does not call for interference by the Labour Court. The correctness of the same was challenged by thebefore the Industrial Court which is the Appellate Court, by filing C.A. No.275 of 2006. The Appellate Court by its order dated 22.11.2006 set aside the Award passed by the Labour Court and remanded the case no. 421 of 2001 to it for itsThe Labour Court again passed the award dated 15.2.2007 after reconsidering the case as directed by the Appellate Court, in favour ofholding that the order of dismissal passed by the Company does not warrant interference by it. The correctness of the same was again challenged by thebefore the Industrial Court which again remanded the case to the Labour Court by its order dated 7.8.2007 in C.A. No. 53 of 2007.7. The Labour Court afterof the case, has partly allowed the application of theand set aside the order of dismissal dated 30.7.2001 passed against theany was directed to reinstate theny filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, questioning the correctness of the Award passed by the labour Court by filing C.A. No.340 of 2007 urging certain legal grounds and vide its order dated 27.1.2009, the Industrial Court has held that the evidence produced by theduring the domestic enquiry does not show that the workman has made less production intentionally during the relevant period in respect of which the two charge sheets were served upon him. However, the Industrial Court held that withholding of 50% of the back wages from thefor the proved misconduct is justified and it found no other reason for its interference with the Award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal of theIt has further held that the order of dismissal passed by theis disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of theby recording its findings to that effect with reference to the material evidence on record and held that the charges are proved partially by theman before the Inquiry Officer.9. The Appellate Court examined the proportionality of the order of dismissal passed against theby the Disciplinary Authority of theafter adverting to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 481 )and Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah & Ors. v. Hoti Lal & Anr. ((2003) 3 SCC 605 )and held that the charges levelled against theonly proved that he has not completed the production to the full capacity but the punishment order of dismissal from service awarded against theis disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. Further, it has opined that the Disciplinary Authority could have imposed a lesser punishment, such as censure, withholding of increments or any other fine as provided under Clause 12(3)(a)to(c) of the SSO upon thefor the proved misconduct. However, the employer has awarded severe punishment of dismissal on thewhich is much harsher and unjustified in proportion to the proved misconduct as it would deprive the livelihood of theand his family members. Hence, the Labour Court interfered with the same in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act and held that the order of dismissal passed against the workman is not proper and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same was set aside.10. The Award of reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages was challenged by theby filing the writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, urging various legal grounds. The High Court, after adverting to the relevant facts and the findings of fact recorded in the Awards passed by both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, after examining the relevant provisions of the M.P.I.R. Act and the standing orders and keeping in view the order of dismissal passed against theas punishment under the provisions of the SSO, has held that the exercise of power under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act by both the Labour Court and the Appellate Court in substituting the lesser punishment in place of the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law and it further held that it is not a fit case for it to interfere with the same and held that the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 107 of M.P.I.R. Act has got the original jurisdiction and power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the workmanby the Disciplinary Authority of theand the same is concurred with by the Industrial Court in exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction afterof evidence on record. Secondly, it has held that the charges levelled against thewere partially proved but it did not call for theto impose extreme punishment by passing the order of dismissal against him. Further, looking into the nature of the charges and its gravity, the imposition of punishment of dismissal upon him is disproportionate to that of the charges levelled against thewhich are partially proved and lastly producing less tablets by theduring that particular duration may have been due to several reasons. Therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that the punishment of withholding 50% back wages justifies the proved act of misconduct against theIt has further held that the same would be proper, particularly, having regard to the fact that no past misconduct of the workman was relied upon by thewhich is one of the relevant considerations at the time of passing the order of dismissal against him as per Clause 12(3)(vi) of the SSO required to be followed by theThe correctness of the impugned judgment and the order of the High Court has been questioned in this appeal by theon certain grounds raising substantial questions of law.

Court's reasoning:
25. Having regard to the nature of judicial review power conferred upon the High Court, it has rightly accepted the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court which is affirmed by the Appellate Court by recording valid and cogent reasons in the impugned Award/judgment. The same can neither be termed as erroneous nor error in law.26. Thewilful disobedience of lawful or reasonable order under Clause 12(1)(d) of the SSO and the wilful slowing down of the work performance by him has been held to be partially proved. Therefore, the Labour Court has imposed a lesser punishment as against the order of dismissal in exercise of its original jurisdiction and power under Section 107 of the M.P.I.R. Act as the Disciplinary Authority has failed to give any valid reasons for not imposing any one of the lesser punishments as provided under Clause 12 (3)(b)(i) to (v) of SSO. Hence, the denial of 50% back wages to the workman by the Labour Court is itself a punishment imposed upon the workman as held by this Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathor (supra), upon which reliance has been rightly placed by the learned counsel for the respondentworkman. The contention urged on behalf of thethat the award of back wages in the absence of any plea and evidence by thethat he was not gainfully employed cannot be accepted by us in view of the decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) & Ors (2013) 10 SCC 324 ). delivered by this Court to which one of us, (Justice V. Gopala Gowda), is a party to the judgment.27. For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and Awards of the High Court as well as the Appellate Court and the Labour Court.The first point is required to be answered in favour of thefor the followingLabour Court at the first instance has erroneously failed to exercise its jurisdiction by notthe evidence on record after holding that the preliminary issue regarding the domestic enquiry conducted by theis legal and valid. The said erroneous finding was challenged by thein the Appellate Court after two remand orders were passed by the Industrial Court. Ultimately, the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction and onof the facts and the evidence on record and in accordance with the decision of this Court in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. (AIR (1973) SC 1227 ), it has found fault with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was endorsed by the Disciplinary Authority which has erroneously held that the workman was guilty of the misconduct. The Labour Court after the two remand orders has rightly come to the conclusion onof the evidence on record and held that the charge levelled against the respondent is partially proved and even then the order of dismissal imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority, has been done without notifying theabout his past service record, as required under Clause 12(3)(b)&(c) of the SSO, which aspect is rightly noticed and answered by the Labour Court at para 20 of its Award dated 29.10.2007. Thus, the order of dismissal of the workman from the service is disproportionate and severe to the gravity of the misconduct.Further, the Labour Court after adverting to the judgments of this Court referred to supra has rightly held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and interfered with the same by imposing the lesser punishment of denial of 50% back wages with reinstatement and the same has been examined and rightly upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court in exercise of its judicial review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.