Telangana High Court
P. Sangameshwar vs The Production Manager, Mrf Limited on 24 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.315, 316 and 649 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
All these Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the common
order, dated 14.03.2024, passed by learned single Judge of this
Court in W.P.Nos.25064 and 28129 of 2011, which were filed
challenging the Award dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Labour
Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.74 of 2008, therefore, all the Writ
Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The employer filed W.A.Nos.315 and 316 assailing the
common order dated 14.03.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25064 and
28129 of 2011, respectively, whereunder W.P.No.25064 of 2011
was dismissed and W.P.No.28129 of 2011 was allowed quashing
the impugned Award of the Labour Court insofar as treating the
workman as a fresh workman and also treating the out of service
period as 'not on duty' with continuity of service.
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
3. The workman filed W.A.No.649 of 2004 against the order
passed in W.P.No.28129 of 2011, insofar as not granting monetary
benefits for the out of service period though the same was ordered
to be treated as 'on duty'.
4. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the Labour Court.
5. Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned senior counsel
appearing for Smt N.Seethalaxmi, learned counsel on record for the
appellants in W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024, and the respondents in
W.A.No.649 of 2024, and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel
for the appellant in W.A.No.649 of 2024 and the respondent in
W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024.
6. The factual matrix of the case in brief as averred by the
workman before the Labour Court is that initially, he was
appointed as probation workman on 01.05.1995; that after
completion of probation, his services were confirmed on
01.11.1997; that on 07.02.2008, when he was on duty on Machine
No.4 Band Building-II as Operator, at about 11 am., the Supervisor
instructed him to load 1010 I cut roll and accordingly, he loaded
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
the same; that after completion of the said work, again the
workman asked the Supervisor as to which cut roll is to be loaded,
for which the Supervisor advised to load 1056 cut role and
accordingly, the workman attended to the same. It was further case
of the workman that when the Supervisor was searching for breaker
cut roll at Breaker stand storage, suddenly a small breaker cut roll
accidentally slipped from the stand and fell on the floor touching
the workman's feet, due to which he raised the hands in pain and in
that process, one of his hands touched the Supervisor who was
standing beside him; that he never behaved in angry mood with the
Supervisor and he did not slap the Supervisor either intentionally or
unintentionally, as alleged by the Supervisor.
7. On the other hand, the case of the employer as narrated in
the counter filed before the Labour Court is that the workman was
assigned the job of Band Building Operator; that on 07.02.2008 at
about 10 am, the Supervisor instructed the workman to load
1090 I cut roll on the machine as per the schedule, however, the
workman denied to load the same and disobeyed the instructions of
the Supervisor despite the Supervisor explaining that as per work
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
schedule, 1090 I cut roll has to be loaded on the machine otherwise
there will be less purity of production; that without following the
instructions of the Supervisor, the workman loaded 1010 I cut roll
as against 1090 I cut roll without knowledge and consent of the
Supervisor.
7.1. It is further case of the employer that at about 12.30 pm., the
Supervisor instructed the workman to load 1056 I cut roll on the
machine, but again the workman insisted the Supervisor for some
other roll and the Supervisor explained the workman to load only
1056 I cut roll and later, the Supervisor went to breaker stand
storage area for searching the breaker cut rolls; that the workman
without loading 1056 I cut roll on the machine followed the
Supervisor to Breakers Stand and forced him to allot some other
load; and at that time, a small breaker (small fabric roll) suddenly
slipped from the Breaker's stand and fell on the feet of the
workman; that immediately, the workman got angry and slapped
the Supervisor on his left cheek and has also thrown the said small
breaker on the Supervisor, as a result, the Supervisor sustained
injury on his left cheek; and that on account of acts of the
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
workman, the working atmosphere in the Band Building-II
Department got disturbed and the workers stopped their work for
some time in the Department.
8. Thereafter, the Supervisor gave complaint to the
Management on the very same day i.e., on 07.02.2008 intimating
about the incident and requesting to take necessary action against
the workman. Basing on the said complaint, charge sheet was
issued to the workman calling for an explanation, for which the
workman submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the
explanation submitted by the workman, an Enquiry Officer was
appointed on 23.02.2008; that the Enquiry Officer conducted
enquiry; that in the enquiry, on behalf of the employer, the
Supervisor was examined as M.W-1 and Senior Officer (HR) was
examined as M.W-2 and Exs.M-1 to M-15 were marked. On behalf
of the workman, the workman himself got examined as D.W-1 and
the representation of the workman dated 16.03.2008 was marked as
Ex.D-1; and that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the oral and
documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that charges framed
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
against the workman were proved and accordingly, submitted his
report dated 02.05.2008.
9. The employer based on the enquiry report issued letter dated
05.06.2008 calling for objections from the workman on the
findings of the Enquiry Officer; that in response thereto, the
workman submitted his objections; that not satisfied with the
objections submitted by the workman, the employer issued second
show cause notice on 06.09.2008 proposing to impose punishment
of dismissal from service, for which the workman submitted his
reply on 10.09.2008, however, not satisfied with the same, the
employer passed order of dismissal from service against the
workman vide order dated 23.09.2008.
10. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2008, the workman
approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.74 of 2008 under
Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour
Court vide Award, dated 18.07.2011, set aside the dismissal order
dated 23.09.2008 and directed the employer to reinstate the
workman into service as fresh candidate by fixing his salary at
which he was drawing at the time of his suspension by treating the
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
absent period as 'not on duty'. The Labour Court further ordered
that the workman is not entitled to any monetary benefits during
the absent period i.e., from the date of suspension till the date of
reinstatement.
11. Challenging the Award dated 18.07.2011, the employer
filed W.P.No.25064 of 2011, whereas the workman filed
W.P.No.28129 of 2011 seeking a direction to the employer to treat
the absent period as 'on duty' along with backwages and to extend
all consequential benefits. The learned single Judge clubbed both
the Writ Petitions and vide common order dated 14.03.2024
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the employer and allowed the
Writ Petition filed by the workman, thereby, quashing the
impugned Award insofar as treating the workman as fresh
workman and also treating the out of service period as 'not on
duty', however, without any monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the
said common order, the employer and the workman filed the
present Writ Appeals, as stated supra.
12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the employer
contended that the learned single Judge has on erroneous
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
consideration of the evidence on record dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the employer; that the learned single Judge as well as the
Labour Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the workman
did not follow the instructions of the Supervisor which amounts to
disobedience and the workman also slapped the Supervisor under
the guise of reaction to the accidental fall of cut roll, which clearly
amounts to indiscipline and misconduct. Learned counsel further
contended that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge
failed to consider the fact that the workman had followed the
Supervisor to Breakers stand storage which is not his work place.
He further contended that even if it is considered that there is
sudden reaction on the part of the workman due to fall of cut roll
on his feet, raising of hand can only touch chin or any other part,
however, it would not touch cheek of the Supervisor, which clearly
show that the workman intentionally slapped the Supervisor which
fact was not properly considered by both the Labour Court as well
as the learned single Judge.
12.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that proper
enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein two
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
witnesses were examined and 15 exhibits were marked on behalf of
the employer, however, the Labour Court though did not believe
the contention of the workman, interfered with the punishment
imposed on him on the ground of proportionality. He further
contended that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the
evidence on record in proper perspective and has come to an
erroneous conclusion. He further contended that the observation of
the learned single Judge in the impugned order that the intention of
assault on the part of the workman and his misconduct have not
been established is contrary to the evidence and material available
on record. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to
allow the Writ Appeals filed by the employer and to dismiss the
Writ Appeal filed by the workman.
13. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Management relied upon number of judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are detailed as hereunder:-
13.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hombe Gowda EDN Trust &
Anr. Vs State of Karnataka & Others 1 held as under:-
2003 LLR 141
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
"The jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment
could be exercised only when, inter alia, it is found to be
grossly disproportionate.
...
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 and maintenance of discipline of an
institution is equally important."
13.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Employers, Management,
Collery, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Etc. vs Bihar Collery
Kamgar Union through Workmen2 held as under:-
"The Industrial Tribunal under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the
punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid
reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with 'such
punishment it should bear in mind the principle of
proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the
stringency of the punishment.
The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the finding of the
learned Single Judge who has rightly held that the assault on the
senior officials by the workmen in discharging of their duties is a
misconduct and in such a situation, officials who are managing the
affairs will be demoralized.
2005 LLR 373
11 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
13.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma3 held as under:-
"The jurisdiction under section 107A of the Act to interfere
with punishment when it is a discharge or dismissal can be
exercised by the Labour Court only when it is satisfied that the
discharge or dismissal is not justified Similarly, the High Court
gets jurisdiction to interfere with the. punishment in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is shockingly
disproportionate to the charge proved."
The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as
hereunder:-
"Discipline at the work place in an organization like the
employer herein is the sine qua non for the efficient working of
the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline
and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a
Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that
the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the
charge proved.
....
"Obedience to authority in a work place is not slavery, It is not
violative of one's natural rights it is essential for the prosperity
of the organization as well as that of its employees When in
such a-situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for
hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of
the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it
2005 LLR 420
12 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed
unduly harsh or disproportionate. "
13.4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Engineering &
Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. N. K. Singh 4 held as hereunder:-
"We find that the Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair
and proper. The conduct highlighted by the management and
established in inquiry was certainly of very grave nature. The
Labour Court and the High Court have not found that
misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the
finding on facts that the acts complained of were established
has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by
the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact
encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any reason as to
why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the
Labour Court should not have passed the order in the manner
done. The case of R.P. Singh was not oh a similar footing. He
was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was
the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the
Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be
sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service
in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored."
13.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Subrata Nath v. Union of
India 5 held as under:-
2007 LLR 109
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998
13 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
"It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering
with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except
in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or
grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no
evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been
violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to
or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary
Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.
.....
In exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for
that matter, the Tribunal cannot reapprecaite the evidence to
arrie at its own conclusion in respect of penalty imposed unless
and untilthe pubnishment imposed is so disproportiaonte to the
offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court or
the Tribunal."
13.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod 6 held as hereunder:-
"In Domestic Enquiry, the test of proof of charge is
preponderance of probability. The charge is not required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. As long as there is some
evidence on record to establish the connection with the charge,
no perversity can be found in the finding of guilt. It is only in
cases where the finding of guilt is not based on any evidence or
where there is total absence of evidence, Court or Tribunal can
interfere in the finding of guilt."
The Hon'ble Apex Court further held as under:-
2024 LLR 641
14 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
"After holding that the charges against the Workman were
proved, the Tribunal ought to have answered the Reference in
the negative by upholding the penalty of dismissal/discharge.
The learned Presiding Officer has rewarded the Workman with
reinstatement with 20% back wages along with seniority and
consequential benefits despite commission of serious
misconduct of assaulting his superior officer. The impugned
Award is therefore liable to be set aside."
13.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation & Ors. Vs. Hira Singh Parihar 7 held as
hereunder:-
"A disciplinary inquiry is conducted by the employer to inquire
into a charge or misconduct pertaining to a breach of the rules
and regulations governing the service of the employer. The
standard of proof is not that governed by a criminal trial. In
exercising judicial review, the test is whether the findings are
based on some evidence. The High Court may interfere with
only in a case where there is no evidence to sustain the charge
of misconduct."
13.8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Management,
Carborandum Universal, Ranipet vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Vellore & Anr. 8, held as hereunder:-
"'The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence
have undermined the discipline in the organisation, hence, in
2020 LLR 122
2017 LLR 917
15 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the
Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under
Section 11A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of
dismissal."
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman
contended that except examining the complainant and the Senior
Officer (HR) as witnesses, no other workmen were examined by
the employer in the enquiry, therefore, the Labour Court as well as
the learned single Judge have come to a right conclusion that the
workman is not guilty of charges framed against him. Learned
counsel further contended that the contention of the employer that
there was misconduct on the part of the workman is not accepted
by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge. He further
contended that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion
that the workman is not guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court
ought to have reinstated the workman with continuity of service
and with all attendant benefits, instead of directing the employer to
appoint him as fresh candidate. Learned counsel further contended
that the learned single Judge having treated the out of service
period as 'on duty', has committed error in not giving monetary
16 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
benefits to the workman for the said period. Learned counsel
finally contended that there is no fault on the part of the workman
and he was unnecessarily victimized and therefore, he is entitled to
all the benefits and prayed this Court to allow the Writ Appeal filed
by the workman.
15. Learned counsel for the workman relied upon the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
15.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and
ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao 9 held as hereunder:-
" The High Court again observed that the orders passed by
the Departmental Authorities were vitiated because of two
other matters (1) that the enquiry officer declined to
summon and examine two witnesses for the defence even
though a request in that behalf was made; and (ii) that there
was no charge against the respondent of "falsifying the
record by omitting to write what he had done or what
happened in the police station, and he had not been given an
opportunity of meeting such a charge and therefore the
respondent had no fair hearing consistent with the
principles of natural justice."
15.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh vs.
Commissioner of Police and ors., 10 held as hereunder:-
AIR 1963 SC 1723
17 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
"The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be
characterised as perverse if it is shown that such findings are
not supported by any evidence on record or are not based on
the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person
could have come to those findings on the basis of that
evidence."
Normally the High Court and this Court would not
interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic
enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it
would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial
scrutiny.
A broad distinction has therefore, to be maintained
between the decisions which are perverse and those which are
not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence
which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person
would act upon it, the order would be perverse."
15.3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Management
of Madurantakam, Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.
S. Viswanathan 11 is totally different to the present set of facts and
hence, the same is not applicable.
15.4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Karnataka
vs. Gowramma and ors., 12 held as hereunder:-
"Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual
background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A
(1999) 2 SCC 10
(2005) 3 SCC 193
(2007) 13 SCC 482
18 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its
own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving
a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a
Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which
the case is decided and for this reason it is important to
analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi.
According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every
decision contains three basic postulates - (i) findings of
material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of
facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct,
or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law
applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
(iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A
decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of
the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation
found therein nor what logically flows from the various
observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the
reason or principle on which a question before a Court has
been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of
Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (1970) ILLJ 662
SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors.
(1996) 6 SCC 44. A case is a precedent and binding for what
it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in
their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act
of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.),
Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be
read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed
to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are
found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law
but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case
19 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
in which such expressions are found and a case is only an
authority for what it actually decides."
15.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava 13 held as
hereunder:-
"It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held
against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with
the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory
Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion
or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error
on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of
certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial
review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness
or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of
fact."
15.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of
India 14 held as hereunder:-
2021 (2) SCC 612
20 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
"It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is
limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-
criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove
the charge. Although the charges in a departmental
proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial,
i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial
function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a
conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability
to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While
doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant
fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He
cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant
testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and
conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which
the delinquent officer had not been charged with.
15.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Mysore vs. K.
Manche Gowda 15 held as hereunder:-
"Before we close, it would be necessary to make one point
clear. It is suggested that the past record of a government
servant, if it is intended to be relied upon for imposing a
punishment, should be made specific charge in the first stage
of the enquiry itself and, if it is not so done, it cannot be relied
upon after the enquiry is closed and the report is submitted to
the authority entitled to impose the punishment. An enquiry
against a government servant is one continuous process,
(2006) 5 SCC 88
AIR 1964 SC 506 C.B
21 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
though for convenience it is done in two stages. The report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer is only recommendatory in
nature and the final authority which scrutinizes it and imposes
punishment is the authority empowered to impose the same.
Whether a particular person has a reasonable opportunity or
not depends, to some extent, upon the nature of the subject-
matter of the enquiry. But it is not necessary in this case to
decide whether such previous record can be made the subject
matter of charge at the first stage of the enquiry. But, nothing
in law prevents the punishing authority from taking that fact
into consideration during the second stage of the enquiry, for
essentially it relates more to the domain of punishment rather
than to that of guilt. But what is essential is that the
government servant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to
know that fact and meet the same."
15.8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arrack Bottling Unit,
Khammam vs. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,
Warangal 16 held as hereunder:-
"It is quite often reiterated by the Apex Court and the High
Courts that the High Courts, while reviewing the awards of
the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts, cannot go
into the question of adequacy or inadequacy, sufficiency or
insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the charges
are held to have been proved, and if they find that the findings
are grounded on some substantial acceptable evidence, the
findings cannot be upset. The High Courts in exercise of their
2012 (1) ALD 220 D.B
22 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re-
appreciate evidence and record a finding on a question of fact
different from the one recorded by the Industrial Tribunals and
the Labour Courts even in a case where two views are
possible from the same evidence. Re-appraisal of evidence is
the power of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts,
and not of the High Courts."
15.9. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the
submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and has
also carefully gone through the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties.
16. Perusal of record would disclose that admittedly, there is no
dispute with regard to occurrence of incident on 07.02.2008.
However, there are conflicting versions by the employer and the
workman with regard to the manner in which the incident had
occurred.
17. It is the specific case of the employer that the workman was
supposed to work as Operate at a specified place i.e., Band
Building-II, however, he followed the Supervisor to the Breakers
stand storage, where he slapped the Supervisor on his left cheek.
23 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
18. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the workman that
a small breaker cut roll fell on his feet, due to which he raised his
hand in pain and it accidentally touched the Supervisor.
19. With regard to the said incident, a detailed enquiry was
conducted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein on behalf of the
employer, the Supervisor and the Senior Officer (H.R) were
examined as M.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, and on behalf of the
workman, he got himself examined as R.W-1.
20. In fact, it is the case of either party that no workmen were
present at the relevant time of the incident. Therefore, no workmen
were examined on behalf of either parties in support of their
respective versions regarding the incident. In the light of the same,
the observation of the learned single Judge in the impugned order
that no co-workers were examined on behalf of the employer
equally applies to the workman.
21. It is relevant to be noted that, in the instant case, the
respondent/ workman was given enough opportunity of being heard
and producing witness to support his version, however, except
examining himself as a witness, he did not choose to examine
24 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
anyone on his behalf. The Enquiry Officer, based on the evidence
and material placed before it in the form of oral evidence of
M.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence, i.e., Exs.M-1 to M-15,
has come to conclusion that the workman was guilty of the charges.
In fact, the Labour Court also held that enquiry is proper, valid and
binding on the parties and further observed that the explanation of
the workman that he accidentally hit the Supervisor is not
believable. It is not the case of the workman that the findings of the
Labour Court are perverse.
22. It is relevant to note that even if the contention of the
workman is taken into consideration that as the breaker cut roll fell
on his feet, due to pain he raised his hand and it accidentally
touched the Supervisor, there is no probability or any possibility of
the hand of the workman touching the left cheek of the Supervisor.
Further, the Supervisor immediately after the incident lodged a
complaint with the Management, whereas the workman did not
report the same to the Management. In the cross-examination, the
workman specifically admitted that if there is any problem, the
25 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
same has to be indicated to the personnel concerned, but should not
resort to direct action.
23. In fact, though M.W-2 is not an eye-witness to the incident,
deposed to the effect that in the past, the workman committed
various acts of misconduct and on the complaints given by the
personnel concerned, the Management issued show-cause notices
to the workman, to which he submitted his explanation and the
same were marked as Exs.M-9 to M-15. This statement of M.W-2
coupled with Exs.M-9 to M-15 shows the past conduct of the
workman.
24. The Labour Court in its Award dated 18.07.2011 specifically
observed as under:-
"Though the petitioner is saying that he never intended to
slap on the cheek of his Supervisor there was no proper
reason for his following the Supervisor to the store. And
further the explanation of the petitioner that hand raised
all of a sudden due to pain when the cut roll fallen on his
feet and accidentally it touched the cheek of the
Supervisor is also not believable."
26 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
25. The Labour Court further held that the enquiry conducted
by the Enquiry Officer is proper, valid and binding on the parties.
The Labour Court in its Award further observed as hereunder:-
"The Supervisor alone as MW-1 spoke that the petitioner
slapped on his left cheek when a cut roll fallen on his feet.
No co-workers who were available in the factory at that
particular point of time were examined in support of the
said version of M.W-1. But, the petitioner himself clearly
stated in his explanation and also in his evident when cut
roll fallen on his feet, due to pain he raised his hand,
accidentally it came into contact with the left cheek of the
Supervisor which is not believable. Whether the slapping
on the cheek of the Supervisor angrily, intentionally or
accident or not, but the incident is proved."
26. It is relevant to note that despite above specific observations
with regard to incident, the Labour Court has interfered with the
punishment of dismissal from service only on the ground that the
said punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of offence.
27. It is also evident from record that with regard to the
misconduct of the workman on previous occasions with
his co-employees /workman, number of complaints have been filed
against him, which were marked as Exs.M-9 to M-15 before the
27 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
Enquiry Officer. Thus, in the light of the said evidence, credence
can be given to the contention of the Supervisor that the workman
disobeyed his orders and followed him to Breakers Stand storage
and slapped him on his left cheek.
28. Admittedly, the workman was posted to work as Operator on
Machine No.4 in Band Building-II as Operator and he is expected
to discharge his duties at his work place and the incident has taken
place at Breakers stand storage. The workman has not given any
reason as to for what purpose he moved to Breakers stand storage
when he was supposed to work at his specified place i.e., Band
Building-II. This strengthens the contention of the employer that
workman followed the Supervisor to the Breakers stand storage
and has slapped the Supervisor.
29. Therefore, the observation of the learned single Judge that
there is no misconduct on the part of the workman and further, no
intention of assault can be attributed to the workman is erroneous
and contrary to the evidence available on record.
30. In the present case, it is established that there is clear
indiscipline, disobedience and misconduct on the part of the
28 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
workman and further, the workman moved from his place of work,
where he was supposed to discharge his duties, and followed the
Supervisor to Breaker's stand storage and slapped the Supervisor.
In the light of clear observation of the Labour Court that the
contention of the workman that he raised his hand in pain when a
small breaker stand fell on his feet and it accidentally touched the
cheek of the Supervisor is unbelievable. The acts of the workman
clearly amounts to indiscipline, disobedience and misconduct, and
if the workman is not punished for such acts, it will have
demoralized effect on the higher officials and will also have
adverse affect on the working atmosphere in the institution or
factory, as the case may be.
31. Thus, this Court finds that the observations and ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hombe Gowda EDN Trust's
case (cited supra), Employers Manager Collery's case (cited
supra), Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited's
case (cited supra) and Management Carborandum Universal
Ranipet's case (cited supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case.
29 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
32. Further, taking into consideration the fact that charges were
proved in the enquiry and also the past conduct of the workman as
evidenced by Exs.M-9 to M-15, this Court is of the view that the
punishment imposed on the workman is not disproportionate to the
gravity of charges framed against him. Thus, with due respect to
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proposition laid down in Jagdish
Chandra Sharma's case (cited supra) is duly followed in the
instant case.
33. It is further apt to note that in the case on hand, the
disciplinary authority has come to a categorical conclusion that the
charges leveled against the workman are proved based on the
evidence on record, i.e., MWs.1 and 2 and Exs.M-1 to M-15, which
were marked on behalf of the employer. It is also pertinent to note
that the workman except examining himself as D.W-1 has not led
any evidence rebutting the evidence placed on record by the
employer about his insubordination, indiscipline and misconduct
also his past conduct. Further, the Labour Court having observed
that the explanation of the workman that when the cut roll fell on
his feet, due to pain he raised his hand and it accidentally touched
30 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
the cheek of the Supervisor is not believable, interfered with the
punishment imposed on the workman only on the ground of
proportionality.
34. As regards the observation of the learned single Judge in the
impugned order that no intention can be attributed to the workman
to assault the Supervisor and that sudden unexpected incident has
been erroneously treated by the Management as misconduct of the
workman, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that said observations of the learned single Judge is
contrary to the evidence and material placed on record and the
same amounts to re-appreciation of the evidence on record which is
impermissible while exercising the power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Subrata Nath's case (cited supra).
35. It is relevant to note that the learned single Judge has failed
to consider the fact that the workman has neither led any evidence
in support of his self-testimony nor led any evidence rebutting the
case of the Management as regards the occurrence of the incident
and also his past conduct.
31 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
36. Therefore, taking into account the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, i.e., disobeying the instructions of the
Supervisor with regard to loading of cut roll of particular size in the
machine and his following the Supervisor to Breaker's Stand
Storage leaving the Band Building-II where he was supposed to
discharge his duties, and his forcing the Supervisor to allot some
other work to him, shows the attitude and behavior of the
workman. Admittedly, the incident in question occurred on the
same day when the workman reportedly disobeyed the instructions
of the Supervisor at the work place. The intention of the workman
can be gathered from the chain of events that occurred on the date
of incident. In such a backdrop, as rightly observed by the Labour
Court, the version of the workman that his hand accidentally
touched the cheek of the Supervisor as he raised his hand in pain
due to sudden fall of cut roll on his feet cannot be believed. Hence,
this Court holds that the act of the workman i.e., his hand touching
the cheek of the Supervisor, which otherwise means slapping the
Supervisor is intentional and this misconduct or misdeed of the
workman is proved in the enquiry.
32 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
37. Here, it is to apt to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Arrack Bottling Unit, Khammam's case (cited
supra), wherein it is held that the High Courts in exercise of their
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re- appreciate
evidence and record a finding on a question of fact different from
the one recorded by the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts
even in a case where two views are possible from the same
evidence. Re-appraisal of evidence is the power of the Industrial
Tribunals and the Labour Courts, and not of the High Courts.
Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that no intention
of assault can be attributed to the workman is erroneous.
38. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jagdish Chandra Sharma's case (cited supra), wherein it
is observed that when the workman breaches discipline and the
employer terminates his services, it is not open to the Labour Court
or Industrial Tribunal to take a view mechanically that the
punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge
proved unless the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and
33 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
without any evidence and is based on erroneous consideration of
the evidence and material available on record.
39. In the instant case, the test of preponderance of probability
is established. The said proposition is squarely applicable to the
case on hand. As stated supra, the charge of misconduct and
indiscipline is proved against the workman, hence, it was not open
for the Labour Court to take a view that the punishment of
dismissal of the workman from service is disproportionate to the
charges proved. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the guilt of the
employee/workman was not proved and hence, he should be
reinstated into service with continuity of service.
40. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and in the light of the
settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed supra, this Court holds that the impugned order of the
learned single Judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be set
aside.
41. Insofar as the Award passed by the Labour Court is
concerned, the Labour Court has specifically observed that the
34 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
version of the workman that his hand accidentally touched the
cheek of the Supervisor is not believable, which infers that he has
slapped the Supervisor which is a serious misconduct. Apart from
that, the workman did not follow the instructions of the Supervisor
which amounts to disobedience. Further, he has moved from the
workplace where he is supposed to discharge his duties and
followed the Supervisor to Breaker's stand storage which amounts
to indiscipline. It is also evident from record that there are number
of complaints against the workman with regard to his conduct,
which infers that the workman has aggressive behavior and is a
trouble maker. If appropriate disciplinary action is not taken
against the workman, it may lead to indiscipline among the
co-workers. Further, if a person like the workman, who has
aggressive behavior and also a trouble maker, is reinstated and
allowed to work in the institution, then the atmosphere gets vitiated
and would be embarrassment to the superior officials to work with
him. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court reinstating
the workman afresh is also liable to be set aside and is accordingly,
set aside.
35 AKS, J & LNA, J
& 649 of 2024
42. Accordingly, W.A.Nos.315 and 316 of 2024 are allowed
and W.A.No.649 of 2024 is dismissed.
43. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:24 .01.2025
dr
