http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3670 of 2003

PETITIONER: Onkar Nath Misra                                                    

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Anr.                                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/2005

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde,B.P.Singh & S.B.Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       The appellant herein and some others were charged for  certain  misconduct of gheraoing some senior officers of the  Company for long hours. It is also stated that during the gherao  one of the officers, Manjeet Singh, received injuries. In a domestic  enquiry conducted by the Management, the charge-sheeted  employees were found guilty and they were dismissed from their  service.  On a reference being made in regard to the dismissals   including  that of the  appellant, the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I Faridabad by its award dated 24th of April, 2001  rejected the claim of the workmen, except in regard to one Pradeep  Sharda  whose claim was allowed. In regard to other workmen  including the appellant herein the Labour Court believed  the  evidence of the Management witness Pritam Singh as also other  materials produced as Ext.M-11 to M-15. On that basis the Labour  Court came to the specific conclusion that the Management has  established that the workmen named therein  including  the  appellant took an active part in the gherao of  H.S.Dhaliwal the  then  Vice-President (Works)  and also caused injuries to Manjeet  Singh one of the officers who was also gheraoed. Having come to  the said conclusion and taking into consideration the gravity of the  offence the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the  punishment of dismissal was justified on the facts and  circumstances of the case.         The award of the Labour Court came to be challenged by the  appellant and one Megh Singh by way of two writ petitions before  the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by a common judgment  dismissed both the writ petitions. The High Court in the course of  its order agreed with the Labour Court that the evidence produced  by the Management  marked as Ext. M-6 as also the documentary  evidence  Ext. M-11 to M-15 coupled with the evidence of Shri  B.K.Uppal Vice-President clearly established the misconduct  alleged against the writ petitioners before it. Learned counsel  appearing for the petitioners had argued before the High Court that  the Labour Court discriminated between them and Pradeep Sharma  whose punishment was not upheld by the Labour Court even  though  the evidence  in regard to all of them stood on a similar  footing. The High Court agreed with the finding of the Labour  Court that the case of the petitioners before it and Pradeep Sharma  did not stand on the same footing inasmuch as from the material  produced before the Labour Court it was clear that Pradeep Sharma  was falsely involved, while the misconduct alleged against the writ  petitioners had been duly established. It also did not accept the  argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the  punishment was in any manner disproportionate to the misconduct

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

proved.         Against the common judgment in the  two writ petitions,  referred to herein above, two SLPs. were preferred before this  Court and this Court while entertaining the same at the preliminary  stage granted leave in respect of the present appeal  only and  rejected the other petition. Therefore, Civil Appeal No. 3670 of  2003 pertaining to the Onkar Nath Misra is before us for  consideration.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seriously  contended that from the entire material produced before the Labour  Court in the form of Ext.M-11 to M-15 as well as the evidence of  Pritam Singh and B.K.Uppal, the Management had failed to  establish the alleged misconduct. He also contended that there was  absolutely no difference in the evidence produced by the  Management between the case of the appellant and Pradeep  Sharma who has been granted relief by the Labour Court. Per  contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed  out that the Labour court has taken into consideration the evidence  brought on record during the domestic enquiry as also the material  available before it and has rightly come to the conclusion that so  far as the appellant is concerned his involvement in the gherao was  clearly proved. He submitted the fact that Pradeep Sharma the  other workman was exonerated of the misconduct alleged against  him would not by itself  further the case of the appellant in any  manner, hence, the appellant is not entitled for relief in this appeal.  We have perused the order of the Labour Court and the  reasoning given therein which was reconsidered by the High Court  and we are in agreement with the finding of the tribunal as well as  by the High Court that from the material on record it is established  that the appellant did take part in the gherao of the officers in  which injury was caused to  one of them. In such circumstances  there is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order. The  appeal is dismissed.