http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1339-1340 of 2003

PETITIONER: Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

RESPONDENT: Jagdish Chandra Sharma

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2005

BENCH: N.SANTOSH HEGE,TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

        1.              The appeal C.A. No. 1339 of 2003 is by the employer.  C.A.  No. 1340 of 2003 is by the employee.   The employee was working as a  muster roll labourer in the employer-Organization.  On 19.01.1984, while  in employment, he allegedly physically assaulted a superior officer A.K.  Singh, Sub-Engineer.  He hit him with a tension screw on his back and on  his nose.  The blow on the nose allegedly resulted in fracture of the nose  and severe bleeding.   According to the employer, consequent on the  incident, the employee remained unauthorizedly absent for about three  weeks.  A show cause notice along with a memo of charges based on his  assault on the superior officer and his unauthorized absence from duty,  was served on him.  He was charged with violating the service rules of the  employer-organization.  Pursuant to the objections filed by the employee,  an enquiry officer was appointed to hold a domestic enquiry.  A proper  enquiry was held.  The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and  submitted a report on that basis.  On 14.9.1984, based on the findings, the  services of the employee were terminated with effect from 15.9.1984.   

2.      At the instance of the employee, a reference was made to the  Labour Court.  The Labour Court did not disagree with the finding at the  enquiry either on the inflicting of injuries on the superior officer or on the  unauthorized absence and the consequent violations of the service rules.   The Labour Court took the view that the punishment of termination  inflicted on the employee was punitive in nature.  The employee had been  kept out of service till the date of the decision by that Court and that was  enough punishment in the circumstances.  Therefore, exercising its  powers under Section 107 A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations  Act, 1962, which correspondents to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes  Act, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of termination and ordered  reinstatement of the employee but without back wages.  The employer  filed an appeal before the Industrial Court challenging the interference  with the punishment.  The employee filed an appeal challenging the denial  of back wages.  In the appeal filed by the employer, the Industrial Court  took the view that the Labour Court acted illegally and perversely in  interfering with the punishment awarded on the findings at the enquiry  accepted by the Labour Court.  Therefore, the Appellate Authority, the  Industrial Court, set aside the interference by the Labour Court with the  punishment awarded and held that the termination of service as a  punishment was justified in the circumstances.  Thus, the order of  termination issued by the employer was upheld.  As a consequence, the  appeal filed by the employee claiming back wages was dismissed.  

3.      Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the  employee filed W.P. No. 460 of 1999 in the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

High Court held that the charges against the employee stood proved and  the finding in that behalf by the Labour Court had not been challenged by  the employee in the appeal filed by him before the Industrial Court, since  his appeal challenged only that part of the order of the Labour Court  which denied him back wages.  Though, the High Court found no reason  to interfere with the finding that the charges were proved, it interfered  with the punishment.  The reasons given were, that taking into account the  entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the misconduct  proved, the past behaviour and all other attendant circumstances  appearing on record, the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the  quantum of punishment.  As an added reason, it stated that while  entertaining the Writ Petition, the High Court had stayed the operation of  the order of the Industrial Court, upholding the dismissal and that was  also a ground for interfering with the punishment.  The High Court had no  difficulty in observing that the charge leveled against the employee was a  major one, but since the Labour Court had decided to award a lesser  punishment, the same should not have been interfered with by the  Industrial Court.  Thus, the High Court set aside the decision of the  Industrial Court and restored the decision of the Labour Court.  This  meant that the employee’s reinstatement was ordered but back wages  were denied to him.

4.      The employer and the employee have challenged this decision of  the High Court in these appeals.  The employer has questioned the  interference with the punishment awarded and the employee, the denial of  back wages to him.

5.      Learned counsel for the employer submitted that the High Court  and the Labour Court have totally misunderstood the nature of their  jurisdiction under Section 107A of the Act.  Learned counsel submitted  that the charge proved against the employee was a serious one affecting  the discipline in the entire organization.  Even otherwise, inflicting of a  grave injury on a superior officer while at work, could not be  countenanced by any organization and this coupled with the unauthorized  absence by the employee, clearly justified the order of termination.   Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court rendered on Section  11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to contend that the interference with  the punishment under the circumstances was clearly unjustified and the  decision of the High Court calls for interference.  He also pointed out that  the fact that an interim stay was granted while admitting the Writ Petition  filed by the employer, was not at all a ground to interfere with the  punishment of termination.  Learned counsel for the employee submitted  that the Labour Court had taken note of the circumstances as a whole to  come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was punitive in  nature and called for interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under  Section 107A of the Act and that there was no reason to interfere with the  award of such punishment upheld by the High Court.  Learned counsel  also relied on some of the decisions of this Court in support of his  contention.  He also made an attempt to argue that the charge against the  employee had not been proved though the employee had not filed an  appeal against that part of the decision of the Labour Court in the  Industrial Court and had confined himself to challenging the refusal to  award back wages.

6.      It is clear from the findings recorded and the materials available  before us, that the charge against the employee of hitting a superior  officer with an implement and causing him injury stood proved, as also  his absence from duty without intimation.  In fact, the Labour Court has  found nothing wrong with the domestic enquiry wherein the charges were  found to have been proved.  The Labour Court also proceeded on the basis  that the charges were proved.  The Industrial Court in appeal accepted the  finding that the charges against the employee were proved.  The High  Court also held that the charges against the employee stood proved on the  facts of this case.  The High Court also took note of the fact that the  employee did not even challenge this part of the finding of the Labour

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Court in the appeal, he filed before the Industrial Court.  Thus, it is clear  that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the finding that the  charges against the employee stood proved, even assuming that the  employee, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 2003, is permitted to  raise the question regarding the proving of the charges against him.  We  were taken through the relevant materials.  The materials clearly disclose  that the charges were proved.  We have, therefore, only to ask ourselves  whether in the face of the charges proved, it was proper for the Labour  Court or for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by  the employer.            7.      On a comparison, it is seen that Section 107A of the Act is almost a  reproduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.   Learned  counsel also agreed that its scope was the same as that of Section 11A of  the Industrial Disputes Act.

8.      The question then is, whether the interference with the punishment  by the Labour Court was justified?   In other words, the question is  whether the punishment imposed was so harsh or so disproportionate to  the charge proved, that it warranted or justified interference by the Labour  Court?    Here, it had been clearly found that the employee during work,  had hit his superior officer with a tension screw on his back and on his  nose leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose.   It has also been found  that this incident was followed by the unauthorized absence of the  employee.   It is in the context of these charges found established that the  punishment of termination was imposed on the employee.   The  jurisdiction under Section 107A of the Act to interfere with punishment  when it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court  only when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not justified.    Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the  punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is  shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.   These aspects are well  settled.  In U.P. State Road Transport Corpn.   Vs.  Subhash Chandra  Sharma and others , (2000) 3 SCC 324, this Court, after referring to the  scope of interference with punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial  Disputes Act, held that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering  with the order of removal from service when the charge against the  employee stood proved.  It was also held that the jurisdiction vested with  the Labour Court to interfere with punishment was not to be exercised  capriciously and arbitrarily.   It was necessary, in a case where the Labour  Court finds the charge proved, for a conclusion to be arrived that the  punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge  found proved, before it could interfere to reduce the punishment.   In  Krishnakali Tea Estate   vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh  and another, (2004) 8 SCC 200,  this Court after referring to the decision  in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena ,(1996) 6 SCC 417,  also pointed  out the difference between the approaches to be made in a criminal  proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding.   This Court also pointed out  that when charges proved were grave, vis-‘-vis the establishment,  interference with punishment  of dismissal  could not be justified.   In  Bharat Forge Company Ltd.  vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, 2005(1)  SCALE 345, this Court again reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere  with the punishment should be exercised only when the punishment is  shockingly disproportionate and that each case had to be decided on its  facts.    This Court also indicated that the Labour Court or the Industrial  Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of the Act, had to  act within the four corners thereof.   It could not sit in appeal over the  decision of the employer unless there existed a statutory provision in that  behalf.   The Tribunal or the labour Court could not interfere with the  quantum of punishment based on irrational or extraneous factors and  certainly not on what it considers a compassionate ground.   It is not  necessary to multiply authorities on this question, since the matter has  been dealt with in detail in a recent  decision of this Court in Mahindra  and  Mahindra  Ltd.  v.  N. B.  Narawade,  2005 (2) SCALE 302.  This

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Court summed up the position thus: "It is no doubt true that after  introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain  amount of discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial Tribunal in  interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management  where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct.   The said  area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of  this Court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has  been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court.   The discretion  which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the  existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the  gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the  existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of  the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the  Labour Court to reduce the punishment."  It may also be noticed that in  Orissa Cement Ltd.  vs. V. Adikanda Sahu  (1960 (1) LLJ-518-SC)   and in New Shorrock Mills  vs.  Maheshbhai T. Rao, (1996) 6 SCC  590, this Court held that use of abusive language against a superior,  justified punishment of dismissal.   This Court stated "punishment of  dismissal for using abusive language cannot be held to be  disproportionate".   If that be the position regarding verbal assault, we  think that the position regarding dismissal for physical assault, must be  found all the more justifiable.  Recently, in Employers, Management,  Muriadih Colliery M/s BCCL Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,  Through Workmen (JT 2005 (2) SC 444)  this Court after referring to  and quoting the relevant passages from Management of Krishnakali Tea  Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. [2004 (7)  SCALE 608] and The Management of Tournamulla Estate Vs.  Workmen, [(1973) 2 SCC 502] held :-

"The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence  have undermined the discipline in the organization, hence, in  the above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the  Industrial Tribunal could have exercised its authority under  Section 11(A) of the Act to interfere with the punishment of  dismissal."

9.      In the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting  and injuring his superior officer at the work place, obviously in the  presence of other employees.   This clearly amounted to breach of  discipline in the organization.  Discipline at the work place in an  organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient  working of the organization.  When an employee breaches such discipline  and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court  or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is  shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.  We have already  referred to the views of this Court.  To quote Jack Chan, "discipline is a  form of civilly responsible behaviour which helps maintain social order  and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective  interests of society at large."   Obviously this idea is more relevant in  considering the working of an organization like the employer herein or an  industrial undertaking.  Obedience to authority in a workplace is not  slavery.  It is not violative of one’s natural rights.  It is essential for the  prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees.  When in  such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and  injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no  extenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified.   It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate.  The  Labour Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected  themselves while exercising their jurisdiction.  The Industrial Court made  the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.

10.     We, therefore, allow C.A. No. 1339 of 2003 filed by the employer  and setting aside the decision of the High Court, restore the decision of  the Industrial Court.  That means that the punishment of termination  awarded to the employee will stand.  The appeal C.A. No. 1340 of 2003

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

filed by the employee is dismissed.