M/S. OBETTEE PVT. LTD.versusMOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN

                              MIS. OBETIEE PVT. LTD.                                   A
                                       v.
                               MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN

                                 SEPTEMBER 23,2005

                    [ARIJITPASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]                              B


          Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Termination of workman-Apology
..   tendered by some workmen accepted by the employer-Workman not
     apologising cannot contend that there was implied apology on ground that          C
     he did not indulge in any unlawful activity.

           Constitution of India, 1950--Article 14-Distinctive features-Same
     yardstick cannot be applied in case ofpersons standing on different footing-
     Workmen who had tendered apology stands on different footing from the one
     not apologising-Hence he cannot claim equality and make grievance of D
     discrimination.

           Respondent-workman along with other workmen of appellant-employer
     went on strike. Employer warned them not to go on strike but they did not pay
     any heed. Chargesheet was given and respondent-workman was suspended
     along with 2 others namely Chunnu and Vakil. Thereafter, respondent and           E
     other two, gave assurance to perform their duties diligently and not to indulge
     in activity like strike and thereby requested for withdrawal of their
     suspension.

           Employer revoked their suspension without prejudice to the right to hold
     the enquiry. Domestic enquiry was instituted and charges were leveled against     F
     5 persons including the concerned respondent. During enquiry, Chunnu and
     Vakil accepted the correctness of the charges leveled against them and
     tendered apology, based on which employer did not proceed against them.
     However, respondent-workman continued to contest the charges leveled against
     him. Tribunal highlighted the distinctive features, so far as the respondent-     G

-    workman and the other two namely Chunnu and Vakil were concerned, and
     held that the termination of the respondent-workman was legal and proper.

           The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent-workman and held
     that the distinction made by the Tribunal was artificial. Hence the present
                                          M9                                           H
    450                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   appeal

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: When all the persons do not stand on the same footing, same
    yardstick cannot be applied. Chunnu and Vakil stood at different footing so
B   far as the respondent-workman is concerned. He had, unlike the other two,
    continued to justify his action. That was clearly distinctive feature which the
    High Court failed to properly appreciate. The employer accepted to choose
    the unqualified apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It
    cannot be said that the employer had discriminated so far as the respondent-
    workman is concerned because he had tried to justify his action for which         ..
C   departmental proceedings were initiated. Also, it is not that Chunnu and Vakil
    were totally exonerated. On the contrary, letter of warning was issued to them.
                                                                    [452-H; 453-A)

          Union of India v. Parma Nanda, [1989] 2 SCC 177, relied on.

D         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 817 of2005.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2004 of the Allahabad High
    Court iri C.W.P. No. 19459of1988.

         P.P. Rao, Amit Bhasin, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Sheenam Parwanda
E   and Bhargava V. Desai for the Appellant.

          VJ. Francis, Anupam Mishra and P.I. Jose for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment
F
    of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court holding that the
    termination order as passed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
    'employer' was not sustainable in law.

          Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
G         The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') filed a writ
    application for quashing the order dated 23rd April, 1988 passed by the
    Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad (in short the 'Tribunal') holding that the
    termination of his service with effect from 11.4.1984 was reasonable and legal.
    A reference was made by the State Government in exercise of its power under
H   Section 4(K) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the
         OBETTEE PVT. LTD. v. MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN [PASAYAT, J.]                451

'U.P. Act') for adjudication by the Tribunal. The reference which was made           A
on 21st June, 1996 was registered as Adjudication Case No. 39of1986. After
framing issues on the basis of the statement of payment and the written
statement filed by the parties, initially the Tribunal held that the enquiry was
not fair and proper. However, the employer was granted liberty to adduce
evidence to substantiate its stand that the enquiry was fair and proper. On          B
the basis of materials on record the Tribunal came to hold that the termination
was in order.

      The background in which the reference was made is as follows:

       On 2nd May, 1980 workers of the employer under the instigation of the
respondent-workman went on strike. The respondent-workman did not permit             C
the vehicles carrying the articles to go out of the factory and he and others
not only went on strike but also incited others to go on strike and threatened
others. Though the factory Manager, V.R. Sharma warned them not to go on
strike but they did not pay any heed. Charge sheet was given and the
concerned respondent-workman was suspended. Along with him two others                D
namely Chunnu and Vakil were also proceeded against. At this juncture, the
respondent-workman and the other two gave in writing that their suspension
may be withdrawn since they were giving assurance to perform their duties
diligently and not to indulge in activity like strike. There was further assurance
that full co-operation will be given in the departmental proceedings. The
employer revoked the suspension of the concerned respondent-workman                  E
without prejudice to the right to hold the enquiry. Domestic enquiry was
instituted and charges were levelled against five persons including the
concerned respondent-workman. During enquiry Chunnu and Vakil gave further
assurance that they have tendered unqualified apology and indicated their
remorse for having resorted to illegal strike. On the basis of the unqualified       p
apology and the undertakings given, the appellant-employer did not proceed
further against them but the situation was different so far as the respondent-
workman was conc.emed.

      It is to be noted that while Chunnu and Vakil accepted the correctness
of the charges levelled against them and tendered apology, the respondent- G
workman continued to contest the charges levelled against him. On appreciation
of evidence the Tribunal came to hold that merely because no action was
ta~en against Chunnu and Vakil, the position is not the same so far as the
resp0ndent-workman is concerned. The distinctive features, so far as the
respondent-workman and the other two nam~ly Chunnu and Vakil are H
    452                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A concerned, were highlighted by the Tribunal. Accordingly the Tribunal held
    that the termination of the respondent-workman was legal and proper.

           In the Writ Petition filed before the High Court the primary stand was
    that there were no distinctive features so far as writ petitioner was concerned.
    The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent-workman and held that
B   the distinction made by the Tribunal was clearly an artificial distinction. It was
    further held that though. there was no subsequent· apology tendered, the
    respondent-workman had in letter and spirit shown his bona jides by not
    resorting to any strike subsequent to 2.5.1980 and there is clearly "inferred
    apology" on the part of the respondent-workman. Accordingly the order of
C   termination was set aside and it was directed that the respondent-workman
    was to be reinstated in service if he had not attained the age of superannuation
    and was to be paid 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till
    reinstatement. It was further indicated that in case the respondent-workman
    had attained the age of superannuation, then he will be awarded 50% of the
    back wages from the date of termination till he attained the age of
D   superannuation.

           In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
    that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable. The Tribunal had rightly
    noted the distinctive features so far as the respondent-workman and the other
    two are concerned. While in the case of Chunnu and Vakil they had given
E   undertakings and had expressed regrets for resorting to illegal strike, there
    was no such regret expressed by the respondent-workman. On the contrary
    he tried to justify his action and even termed the strike on 2.5.1980 to be legal
    one.

F          In response, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted
    that the Tribunal had taken a hyper technical view. Even though he had not
    given undertaking as given by Chunnu and Vakil there was no allegation that
    he had resorted to any illegal act thereafter. Mere fact that he had tried to
    justify his action in the proceedings cannot be taken as a distinctive features
    to make a departure from the benevolence shown to Chunnu and Vakil.
G
          On consideration of the rival stand one thing becomes clear that Chunnu
    and Vakil stood at different footing so far as the respondent-workman is
    concerned. He had, unlike the other two, continued to justify his action. That
    was clearly distinctive feature which the High Court unfortunately failed to
    properly appreciate. The employer accepted to choose the unqualified apology
H   given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It cannot be said that the
         OBETTEE PVT. LTD. v. MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN [PASA YAT, J.]              453

employer had discriminated so far as the respondent-workman is concerned            A
because as noted above he had tried to justify his action for which departmental
proceedings were initiated. It is not that Chunnu and Vakil were totally
exonerated. On the contrary, letter of warning dated 11.4.1984 was issued to
them.

       In Union ofIndia v. Parma Nanda, [1989] 2 SCC 177 the Administrative         B
Tribunal had modified the punishment on the ground that two other persons
were let out with minor punishment. This Court held that when all the persons
did not stand on the same footing, same yardstick cannot be applied. Similar
is the position in the present case. Therefore, the High Court's order is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside.
                                                                                    c
       The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

D.G.                                                           Appeal allowed.