M/S. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITEDversusN.K. SINGH

       MIS. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED                    A
                                           v.



..
                                   N.K. SINGH

                               NOVEMBER 8, 2006

                    [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H.KAPADIA,JJ.]                          B


          Labour Laws:

          Industrial Disputes Act, I947:
                                                                                c
           Workman-Allegation of misconduct and assault against-FIR-
     Domestic inquiry-Dismissed from service-Dispute-Labour Court held that
     though the charge of misconduct levelled against the workman established
     but order of his dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge
     proved-It directed reinstatement of the workman with payment of half of the D
     back wages-Challenge to--Modifying the Award, Single Judge of High
     Court directing payment of half of the back wages from the date of the
     award-Letters Patent Appeal dismissed by the High Court-On appeal,
     Held: Misconduct as alleged was of very grave nature-Labour Court found
     inquiry to be fair and proper-Both the Courts below have not found the
     misconduct of any minor nature-Finding on facts establishing the charge E
     of misconduct not disturbed by the Labour Court-Under the circumstances,

-    leniency shown by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the delinquent
     would in fact encourage indiscipline and also not supported by reason,
     hence, unwarranted-Order of dismissal from service as passed in the
     disciplinary proceedings stand restored-Penal Code, 1860; F
     Section 307 rlw Section 34 ·and Section 311.

           The respondent-workman, working as Assistant Store Keeper, was in
     unauthorized occupation of quarter belonging to the appellant-company. A suit
     for eviction filed by the appellant-company was decreed in its favour. When
     the Town Warden went to execute the decree along with Nazir of Civil Court, G
     he was allegedly assaulted ~y the respondent. First Information Report was
     also lodged with the Police against the respondent alleging commission of
     offences punishable under Sections 311and307 read with Section 34 of the
     Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the domestic inquiry the respondent was found
     guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. A dispute was raised by
                                           755                                 II
    756                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A the respondent and reference was made by the State Government under Section
    lO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the meantime, the respondent
    was acquitted in the criminal case on the ground of lack of evidence. The



B
    Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was fair, proper and in accordance
    with the principles of natural justice. An award was passed by the Labour
    Court holding that though the charge of misconduct levelled against the
    respondent was established, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to
                                                                                       -
    the charge proved. Hence, it directed reinstatement of the workman with
    payment of half of the back wages. Appellant-company filed a writ petition
    before the High Court. The Single Judge partly allowed the petition directing
    that half of the back wages was to be paid from the date of award. Letters
C   Patent Appeal filed by the Company was dismissed by the High Court. Hence
    the present appeal.

          The appellant contended that the High Court has fallen into grave error
    by setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of the
    Workmen and payment of 50% back wages; that the respondent was guilty
D   of misconduct; that the Labour Court having found that the domestic inquiry
    was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice should
    not have interfered with the order of dismissal; and that the High Court clearly
    missed to notice that the charges were serious in nature.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
          HELD:l.1. 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
F   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.
                                                                         (759-D-E)
G         1.2. The case of another workman as taken into consideration by the
    Court was not on the similar footing as the incumbent in that case was one of
    the persons instigating whereas the respondent in the present case 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 stands restored.
H                                                                         ~~
  TATAENGINEERINGANDLOCOMOTIVECOMPANYLTD. v. N.K. SINGH[PASAYAT,J.]          757

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 685 of 2006.                   A
      From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2004 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 232/2004.

     Sanjeev Sen, Nandini Gore, Praga Singh, Jayant Mohan and Manik
Karanjawala for the Appellant.                                                       B
      A.N. Deo, A. Janani and T.V. George for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment C
rendered by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the appellant.

      Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows:

       The respondent who was working as Assistant Store Keeper, was in D
unauthorized occupation of quarter belonging to the appellant-company. A
suit for vacation was filed by the appellant •vhich was decreed in his favour.
When the Town Warden (Sri A.K. Banerjee) went to execute the decree along
with Nazir of Civil Court he was assaulted by fists and bricks. Shri A.K.
Banerjee, suffered serious injuries. In the domestic inquiry the respondent
was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. With reference E
to alleged incident on 17.10.1984, First Information Report was lodged alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 311 and 307 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Allegation was
that the respondent as well as others on his instigation assaulted Shri A.K.
Banerjee and he was also threatened with dire consequences. On 23.10.1984 F
charge sheet-cum-notice of inquiry was issued and served on the respondent
under the Works Standing Orders of the appellant, particularly under Standing
Order 24, sub Clauses (xvi) and (xxxii) asking him to show cause to furnish
his explanation and appear at the inquiry. Said Sub-clauses of Clause 24 read
as under:
                                                                                     G
       "Without prejudice in the general meaning of the 'misconduct' ....... (xvi)
       Drunkernns fighting or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour or
       any acts subversive of discipline or efficiency' (xxxii) Threatening or
       intimidating any employees".

     The respondent submitted his explanation on 27 .10.1984. After H
    758                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A   considering the explanation to be unsatisfactory, domestic inquiry was held
    and at the conclusion of the domestic inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted a
    report holding the respondent to be guilty of misconduct. After perusal of the
    report and inquiry proceedings, the General Manager of the appellant-company
    ordered dismissal of the respondent from service of the company w.e.f.
B   25.10.1984 i.e. the date of issue of charge-sheet in terms of Standing Orders.

          A dispute as raised by the respondent and reference was made by the
    State Government under Section lO(l)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
    (in short the 'Act'). The terms of reference were as follows:

            "Whether the termination of services of Shri. N.K. Singh ticket No.
c           9956/08843/l workman of Tata Engineering of Locomotive Company
           ·Ltd., Jameshedpur is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to re-
            instatement and for any reliefs?"

            That on the notice in the reference case, the petitioner and respondent
            workman submitted their respective claims. In th.e meanwhile, the
D           application was filed by the petitioner to decide the validity of the
            domestic enquiry as preliminary issue."

          The appellant and the respondent submitted their respective claim. An
    application was filed by the appellant to decide the preliminary issue as to
E   the validity of the domestic inquiry. On 6.3.1987 the respondent was acquitted
    in the criminal case on the ground of Jack of evidence.

          By order dated 17 .6.1995 the Labor Court decided the validity of the
   domestic inquiry conducted and held that same was fair, proper and in
   accordance with the pr-inciples of natural justice. By order dated 5.1.1996
F award was passed by the Labor Court setting aside the order of dismissal and
   directing respondent's reinstatement with full back wages. Though it was held
   that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent was established,
   the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved. Therefore,
   reinstatement with payment of half of the back wages was directed. Appellant
   filed a writ petition before the High' Court. Learned Single Judge partially
G allowed the writ petition directing that half of the back wages was to be paid
   from the date of award. As noted supra, Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
   It was noted that one R.P. Singh who stood on identical footing was directed
 . to be reinstated with half back wages.

          In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
H
  TATAENGINEERINGANDLOCOMOTIVECOMPANYLTD. v. N.K. SINGH[PASAYAT,J.]       759

that the High Court has fallen into grave error by setting aside the order of A
dismissal and directing reinstatement and payment of 50% back wages.

      R.P. Singh 's case is distinguishable on facts. The facts on record clearly_
show that the respondent was guilty of misconduct. The Labour Court having
found that the domestic inquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice should not have interfered with the order of B
dismissal. The High court clearly missed to notice that the charges were
serious in nature.

      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
the High Court has taken a practical and reasonable view and the order of
dismissal was clearly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.         C
       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 Labor 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
                                                                             D •.,
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
Labor Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. The case
of R.P. Singh was not on a similar footing. He was one of the persons E
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.

         The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.                       F

S.K.S.                                                       Appeal allowed.