2000 JTR(SC) 583
2000 AIR(SC) 1163 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 833 ; 2000 AllLJ 847 ; 2000 2 AWC 1482 ; 2000 2 CLR 13 ; 2000 96 FJR 441 ; 2000 85 FLR 284 ; 2000 3 JT 184 ; 2000 LIC 1026 ; 2000 LIC 1117 ; 2000 1 LLJ 1117 ; 2000 2 LLN 1482 ; 2000 2 LLN 402 ; 2000 2 MLJ 84 ; 2000 2 Scale 371 ; 2000 3 SCC 324 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 349 ; 2000 3 SCJ 141 ; 2000 2 SCR 451 ; 2000 2 SCT 312 ; 2000 2 SLR 396 ; 2000 1 UJ 724 ; 2000 2 UPLBEC 1199 ; 2000 KHC 1051 ; 2000 2 Supreme 316
2000(2) Supreme 316
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation -Appellant
versus
Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2128 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1920 of 1999)
Decided on 15-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shrish Kr. Misra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of serious charge of misconduct when the punishment of removal from service awarded was not in any way shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge found proved against an employee, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in interfering with the order of removal, held capricious and arbitrary and hence not justified.
Act Referred :INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.11(a)
(A) Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Article 226 of the Constitution, governs the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman by a Labour Court or High Court. The section vests the Labour Court with discretionary power to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal and substitute it with reinstatement on such terms as it deems fit, or to award any lesser punishment if the circumstances of the case so require. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, may interfere with the quantum of punishment under Article 226 only when the punishment is shown to be shockingly disproportionate. This case falls within the said provisions as the dispute pertains to the legality of termination of service of a workman for serious misconduct, and the correctness of the punishment imposed is to be evaluated in light of the nature of the misconduct and the record of the employee.
(B) The core legal principles are: (i) Labour Court has been granted overriding power under Section 11-A to substitute a lesser punishment for dismissal or discharge; (ii) High Courts power under Article 226 is limited to cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate; (iii) The Court must examine whether the quantum of punishment is justified in the light of the nature of misconduct and past record of the employee; (iv) The disciplinary proceedings must be proper and free from infirmity for the punishment to be disturbed.
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, a driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was charge-sheeted for three disciplinary offences. The first charge of habitual absence was not proved. The second charge of taking a bus unauthorisedly to Bareilly without the conductor was not established. The third charge of misconduct, involving demanding money in a drunken state and threatening an Assistant Cashier, was found fully established. An enquiry was conducted by a retired District Judge, who recommended removal from service. The Labour Court, while upholding the finding of misconduct, held the punishment of removal to be excessive and substituted it with stoppage of one wage increment and payment of 50% of back wages. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Labour Courts award. The appellant challenged the High Courts order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that though the disciplinary enquiry was proper and free from infirmity, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal because the charge was serious and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The Court observed that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court was capricious and arbitrary, and the High Court failed in its duty under Article 226 to correct the erroneous order. There was no merit in the contention that once the enquiry was found proper, the court could not interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Issues:
Whether the Labour Court was entitled to substitute the punishment of removal with a lesser punishment in a case involving serious misconduct; whether the High Court was bound to correct an award involving a disproportionate punishment under Article 226; and whether the court can interfere with the quantum of punishment once the enquiry is found to be proper.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court to award lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal or discharge, but this discretion is not unfettered. The High Court, under Article 226, retains the power to intervene only when the punishment is shown to be shockingly disproportionate. The nature of the misconduct, the past record of the employee, and the quantum of punishment must be proportionate; otherwise, the interference by the Labour Court would be arbitrary and defeat the object of justice.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the award of the Labour Court setting aside the order of removal are set aside. No order as to costs is made.
(A) Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Article 226 of the Constitution, governs the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman by a Labour Court or High Court. The section vests the Labour Court with discretionary power to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal and substitute it with reinstatement on such terms as it deems fit, or to award any lesser punishment if the circumstances of the case so require. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, may interfere with the quantum of punishment under Article 226 only when the punishment is shown to be shockingly disproportionate. This case falls within the said provisions as the dispute pertains to the legality of termination of service of a workman for serious misconduct, and the correctness of the punishment imposed is to be evaluated in light of the nature of the misconduct and the record of the employee.
(B) The core legal principles are: (i) Labour Court has been granted overriding power under Section 11-A to substitute a lesser punishment for dismissal or discharge; (ii) High Courts power under Article 226 is limited to cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate; (iii) The Court must examine whether the quantum of punishment is justified in the light of the nature of misconduct and past record of the employee; (iv) The disciplinary proceedings must be proper and free from infirmity for the punishment to be disturbed.
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, a driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was charge-sheeted for three disciplinary offences. The first charge of habitual absence was not proved. The second charge of taking a bus unauthorisedly to Bareilly without the conductor was not established. The third charge of misconduct, involving demanding money in a drunken state and threatening an Assistant Cashier, was found fully established. An enquiry was conducted by a retired District Judge, who recommended removal from service. The Labour Court, while upholding the finding of misconduct, held the punishment of removal to be excessive and substituted it with stoppage of one wage increment and payment of 50% of back wages. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Labour Courts award. The appellant challenged the High Courts order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that though the disciplinary enquiry was proper and free from infirmity, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal because the charge was serious and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The Court observed that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court was capricious and arbitrary, and the High Court failed in its duty under Article 226 to correct the erroneous order. There was no merit in the contention that once the enquiry was found proper, the court could not interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Issues:
Whether the Labour Court was entitled to substitute the punishment of removal with a lesser punishment in a case involving serious misconduct; whether the High Court was bound to correct an award involving a disproportionate punishment under Article 226; and whether the court can interfere with the quantum of punishment once the enquiry is found to be proper.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court to award lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal or discharge, but this discretion is not unfettered. The High Court, under Article 226, retains the power to intervene only when the punishment is shown to be shockingly disproportionate. The nature of the misconduct, the past record of the employee, and the quantum of punishment must be proportionate; otherwise, the interference by the Labour Court would be arbitrary and defeat the object of justice.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the award of the Labour Court setting aside the order of removal are set aside. No order as to costs is made.
JUDGMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.
2. Respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as Respondent ), who was a driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (appellant), was charge-sheeted on 16.8.1989 for disciplinary proceedings. Three charges were indicated in the charge-sheet. The first charge related to his habitual absence from duty for the period June, 1988 to May, 1989, regarding which he also did not submit the mileage form. The second charge was that on 19th May, 1989, when he reached Badaun at about 9 P.M. with Bus No. 8680, he informed the Conductor, Dinesh Kumar, that the bus had developed some defects and, therefore, he parked the bus in Badaun workshop. Dinesh Kumar, Conductor, went to sleep in another bus, but when he woke up in the morning he found that the Bus was taken by Respondent to Bareilly, regarding which an information was also given by Dinesh Kumar to the Station Incharge, Badaun. The Bus was also seen coming back from Bareilly. It was noticed that in order to cover up his act of taking the Bus to Bareilly, the Respondent got a remark entered in his duty form by Rampal, Vulcanizer of Badaun Depot, about the defect in the Bus. The third and last charge against the Respondent was that on 24th May, 1980 at about 8.30 P.M., he, along with Shiv Kumar Sharma, Conductor, went to Ramesh Chandra, Assistant Cashier, in the cash room in a drunken state. He demanded money from Ramesh Chandra and when the latter refused, the Respndent abused and threatened to assault him, which was treated as an act of misconduct. The charges were enquired into by Shri S.C. Jain, a retired District Judge, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
3. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Report on 21st September, 1990, in which he found that the charge about habitual absence was not proved against the Respondent. The other charge relating to taking the Bus to Bareilly was also not established, but it was established that he had taken out the Bus unauthorisedly from Badaun workshop to some place without taking the Conductor in the Bus. The third charge of misconduct was found fully established. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 12th August, 1991, and by order dated 31st August, 1991, he was removed from service.
4. On an industrial dispute being raised by Respondent, a reference was made on 31st March, 1993 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, by its award dated 6th December, 1996, came to the conclusion that though the departmental enquiry did not suffer from any infirmity, the punishment of removal was excessive. It consequently set aside the order of removal and substituted the punishment of removal by the punishment of stoppage one wage increment and payment of 50% of the back-wages. The award was challenged by the appellant before the High Court in a writ petition which was dismissed summarily on 27th April, 1998.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that once it was found by the Labour Court that the departmental enquiry conducted against the Respondent was proper and it did not suffer from any infirmity, it was not open to it to interfere with the quantum of punishment. It is contended that the High Court should have, on that ground, set aside the award and maintained the order of removal passed against the Respondent.
6. Whether it is open to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court or the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is, no longer, res integra, as the question has been answered by this Court several times in its various decisions. In Union of India & Anr. v. B.C. Chaturvedi1, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers power on Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to apply its mind on the question of proportion of punishment or penalty. It was held that this power is also available to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, though it was qualified with a limitation that while seized with this question as a writ court, interference is permissible only when the punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate. Again, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors.2, relying upon an earlier decision in Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Workmen3, laid down as under :
"Consequently it must be held that when looking to the nature of charge of even major misconduct which is found proved if the punishment of dismissal or discharge as imposed is found to be grossly disproportionate in the light of the nature of the misconduct or the past record of the employee concerned involved in the misconduct or is such which no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances, inflicting of such punishment itself could be treated as legal victimisation."
7. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act provides as under :-
"11A. Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen-Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require :
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the material on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
8. This Section, as interpreted by this Court, no doubt, vests the Labour Court with discretion to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman into an order of reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. In the present case, the following industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
"Whether the termination of the service of their workman Sh. Subhash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Nathimal, driver by the employer by order dt. 31.8.1991 is proper and legal? If not, what is the relief (with details) to which the workman is entitled to?"
9. 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.
10. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the award dated December 6, 1996 of the Labour Court. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*************