Ramu vs State Of Delhi (Nct) & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1879 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 Writ Petition (Civil) No.19525/2005


                                    Date of Decision : 05.5.2009

RAMU                                         ...... Petitioner
                                  Through : Mr.C.K.Sharma,
                                  Advocate.


                              Versus

STATE OF DELHI (NCT) & ORS.                ...... Respondents
                                  Through : Mr.Arun Sakhija,
                                  Advocate for respondent Nos.2
                                  and 3.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                YES
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?     YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                             YES

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged

the order dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003

passed by the learned Labour Court -I in ID No.481/1991 in

case titled M/s Cypher Pharma Vs. Its Workman Sh.Ramu.

2. By virtue of the first order dated 5th March, 2003, the

learned Labour Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the

domestic enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner

/workman on account of his alleged misconduct was fair and

proper and it did not warrant any interference. The allegations

of the petitioner of bias or the fact that his explanation was not

considered and was dismissed as being without any merit, were

not accepted. The record of the Inquiry Officer showed that the

explanation of the petitioner/workman was duly considered and

the inquiry was fair and proper.

3. By virtue of the award dated 13.10.2003, the learned

Labour Court had answered the reference made to it regarding

the termination of his services as being illegal or unjustified by

deciding the said reference against the petitioner. The learned

Labour Court after examining the evidence and the stand of the

respective sides came to a conclusion that the punishment of

dismissal which was imposed on the petitioner was perfectly

valid and legal.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003 has preferred

the present writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the enquiry against the petitioner has not been

fair and proper and accordingly, the order which has been

handed down by the learned Labour Court on 05.3.2003 is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

was contested by the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the enquiry against the petitioner

/workman was not fair and proper. The question as to whether

the enquiry against the delinquent is fair and proper is

essentially a question of fact which is to be adjudicated by the

learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court in the instant

case has examined the record and come to a finding of fact that

the enquiry was just fair and proper. Merely because this Court

is a superior Court it cannot sit as a Court of appeal and arrive

at a finding other than one which has been recorded by the

learned Labour Court and substitute its own view for the view

taken by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in the

submission made by counsel for the petitioner.

9. The second submission made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is to the effect that the punishment of dismissal

which has been imposed on the petitioner by the respondent is

grossly disproportionate to his proved misconduct. It was

contended that the proved misconduct against the petitioner was

using the uncultured language that ought not to be a ground for

dismissal from services. It was also contended that the petitioner

had rendered service of 23 years with the respondent

/management which was totally unblemished and free from any

stigma and therefore, this ought to have been taken into

consideration while imposing the punishment on the

petitioner/workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

also placed reliance in order to buttress his arguments that the

punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is

disproportionate on the judgment on the Apex Court in case

titled Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(1982) 3 SCC 346, wherein the facts of the said case the use of

the words indiscreet, indecent or threatening language to

superior only once in the course of long unblemished service was

held to be disproportionately excessive and set aside.

10. I have considered the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the said

judgment. No doubt in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court

has come to a conclusion that the use of the indiscreet and

indecent language was not sufficient to result in dismissal. The

punishment of dismissal was considered to be disproportionate

but that is a judgment passed in 1982. In a recent past, there

has been a trend of the Supreme Court in upholding even the

order of removal and dismissal in cases where there is use of

abusive and filthy language. The Court had observed that the

use of such language against the superior Officer not only

disturbs the discipline in the Organization but also undermines

the authority of the superior officer. Reliance in this regard is

placed on Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India 1996 AIR (SC) 255

and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.Narawade 2005 AIR

(SC) 1993.

11. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the petitioner has

been admittedly visited with the punishment of dismissal for

using indiscreet, indecent, threatening or uncultured language.

This use of indiscreet and indecent language against the superior

Officers disturbs the discipline of the Organization and if not

curbed with a heavy hand is likely to give impetus to persons

with such a proclivity to indulge in acts of such misconduct with

impunity.

12. The learned Labour Court has also examined the question

of quantum of punishment which has been imposed on the

petitioner and found it not to be disproportionate. The learned

Labour Court has placed reliance in this regard on the number of

judgments, which are - Punjab Dairy Development Corp. Ltd.

& Anr. Vs. Kala Singh AIR 1997 SC 3661 and Sri

Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Anr. AIR

I JJL 425 1980 High Court, Madras as well as M/s Lastor

Electric and Trading Co. Vs. Baldev Lal AIR 1975 SC 1892.

13. Once the question of quantum of punishment has been

subjected to the judicial scrutiny by the learned Labour Court

below and it has arrived at a finding of fact that the punishment

of dismissal is not disproportionate. This Court cannot sit as a

Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the submissions afresh and in

the light of the facts then come to a finding contrary to what the

Labour Court has held. Even assuming such a finding is arrived

at by this Court, it cannot substitute its own views in place of the

views of the Labour Court. This Court in exercise of power of

judicial review can interfere with the quantum of punishment

when it is ex facie grossly disproportionate to the proved

misconduct. That is not the case in hand.

14. Apart from this, the petitioner has not been able to show

any violation of principles of natural justice and illegality and

perversity and violation of any rule or regulation which would

warrant interference with the impugned judgment.

15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition

and accordingly it deserves to be dismissed.

16. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner contended that

even the cheque for a sum of Rs.2,818/- was sent by the

respondent/Management as a notice period, this cheque has not

been encashed and was sent back to the respondent. It is stated

that the said amount may be released to the petitioner. The

respondents are directed to release the amount of the last drawn

wages of three month's salary at the time when he left the

services along with interest @ 5% per annum on the aforesaid

amount till date. It is directed that the aforesaid amount shall be

released to the petitioner /workman within six weeks from today.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 05, 2009 RN