@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Subhash B. Adi
1. Petitioner - workman has sought for setting aside the award in I.D. No. 93/2001 produced at Annexure-G dated 18.08.2011. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charge that, on 23.09.2000 at about 09:10 a.m., petitioner entered the AGM-HRD chamber without any permission while AGM was discussing urgent departmental issue with one C.S. Narasimhan, the Manager - HRD. Petitioner started shouting in loud voice in regard to his personal issues, as it was alleged that certain reports were submitted for embezzlement of Company''s fund by the petitioner. Petitioner used abusive, unparliamentary words against the AGM and also pushed his chair.
2. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, which issued the second show cause notice, considering the enquiry report and also the reply given by the petitioner, passed an order of dismissal. As against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
3. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper, however, on the ground of victimization, Labour Court relying on the evidence of MW-2 - C.S. Narasimhan, who stated to be was present at the time when the incident took place and MW3 - Deputy Manager, held that the word used being unparliamentary, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, confirmed the order of dismissal. It also considered as to whether the order of punishment is disproportionate to the charge alleged against the petitioner and accordingly held that, the punishment is in proportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against him. As against the dismissal of the said dispute, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, MW-3 is not an eye witness, even MW-2 also is not an eye witness. No such incident had occurred in the chamber, no complaint is filed, no other allegations are made. It was just victimization of the petitioner by the Management. If such an incident had occurred, the AGM or the Company would not have kept quiet from filing of the compliant. If the allegation does not show that the petitioner has used such words, except the oral testimony of MW-2, there is nothing on record to prove the charge. Even then, the Labour Court without regard to the same, has erroneously, relying on the evidence of MW-2 who, under the pressure of the Management, had given a statement, confirmed the order of punishment.
5. It is further further contended that, even if the charge is proved, the allegations as alleged in the charge do not warrant punishment of order of dismissal, which is very harsh punishment.
6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Management submitted that, apart from workman has unauthorsidely entered the chamber of AGM, but the words used by him breaks the discipline of the industry and the workman has entered the office of the Company Secretary, a higher official, used filthy language, insulted, humiliated and even pushed him, such an act is unpardonable and the punishment awarded is just and proportionate. To support his arguments, he relied on the judgment reported in
7. As far as charge is concerned, the allegation is that, the petitioner unauthorizedly entered the chamber of AGM and used filthy language. No doubt, MW-2 in his evidence has stated the words used, however, except MW-2, no other witness is stated to be present at the time of the incident. However, the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Labour Court concurrently have held that, the charge is proved. Even on reconsideration of these materials, I do not find there is any error as far as proof of the charge is concerned.
8. The only question now remains to be considered is, as regard to the proportionality of the punishment.
9. Learned Counsel for the Management submitted that, the petitioner was born on 1.07.1950. He had joined the services in the respondent - Company on 05.07.1995 and was dismissed from employment on 28.03.2001. His services was very short and now, by virtue of his attaining superannuation, he is deemed to have been retired from service. No doubt, petitioner is retired from service, however, having regard to the nature of charge, in my opinion, the punishment could have been little lesser than the order of dismissal. Now, no purpose would be served in asking the Management to reinstate him and having regard to the tenure of the petitioner also, in the ends of justice, it may be ordered for payment of some compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed. In modification of the award of the Labour Court, petitioner shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
