Usage Of Abusive Language May Not Be A Serious One To Impose Capital Punishment Of Dismissal From Service: Madras HC
The Madras High Court while deciding a case has held that usage of abusive language by a workman against his superior may not be a serious one to impose a capital punishment of dismissal from service.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice R. Kalaimathi observed, “… the usage of abusive language may not be a serious one to impose a capital punishment of dismissal from service. Similarly, the Labour Court is empowered to interfere with the punishment, if it is found that the punishment is grossly disproportionate and the power exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be curtailed by any Court, unless the finding of the Labour Court is perverse.”
The Bench also observed that in case of misappropriation or breach of trust, there is no need to bother about the past record, and other than this, while imposing the punishment, the authority concerned must take into account the extenuating or aggravating situation as well as the past record of an employee.
Advocate P.R. Thiruneelakandan appeared for the appellant while Advocate Sanjay Mohan appeared for the respondents.
Facts -
A writ appeal was filed against the order by which the award of the Labour Court was interfered with, thereby justifying the act of the Management in terminating the appellant from service aggrieved by which he was before the High Court. The appellant was working as a Secretary of the Hindustan Lever Limited Tea Workers’ Welfare Union and was asked to participate in a meeting wherein an officer in charge of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) was threatening workers to increase the production of “Hassia Machine” which resulted in hue and cry.
It was the appellant, who pacified all workers and requested them to resume their duty and also requested the aforesaid officer to discuss all issues with the Union. Thereafter, all of a sudden he was issued with an enquiry notice along with a charge memo alleged to have false allegations and then based on the same was imposed a major punishment of termination of service.
The High Court after going through the above facts noted, “… it cannot be lost sight of the fact that no Workman shall cause hindrance to the peaceful atmosphere of the factory and its Management. … As to what induced the Workman to behave like this against his Superior Officer that made him to hold his collar and who was the root cause for the sudden provocation of the Workman, which is of course construed to be unbecoming of a Workman, is a question of fact.”
The Court further said that it cannot expect a low-level employee to behave like Jesus so as to turn his other cheek for getting a voluntary slap and that the disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in such an appeal.
“This observation does not mean that we justify the act of the employee and approve his misconduct. According to us, simple absolvation of charges will not make the Workman realize about his misconduct, as rightly pointed out by the Labour Court and therefore, we are of the view that while interfering with the order dated 25.09.2019 of the learned Single Judge, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be modified partially”, also said the Court.
Considering the totality of circumstances, the Court decided to interfere with the order of the Single Judge and hence modified the award of the Labour Court. It, therefore, directed the Management to reinstate the appellant in the same post with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
“The Workman is not entitled to any backwages and the award of the Labour Court insofar as backwages is interfered with … there is no need for the Management to pay PF contribution from the date of dismissal till today … If the minimum wages payable is more than the last drawn wages, last drawn wages shall be paid from today. The wages paid under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act, 1947 shall not be adjusted at any cost”, clarified the Court.
The Court also said that the appellant shall not be posted in the same place where he worked on the date of dismissal and he shall be transferred to some other far-off place in Tamil Nadu if the Management has a branch therein.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title- S. Raja v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. & Anr.
