RAMA KANT MISRA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (2)

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 648

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI

Case summary

A dispute having been raised questioning the validity of -termination of service of the appellant, the ! But even ·before the notice was served the appellant was dismissed from service on April 6, 1972.

Judgment text

RAMA KANT MISRA v. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS October 21, 1982 jO. A. DESAI AND V. BALAICRISHNA ERADJ, Jl. ] . lndu1trial Disputes Act, 1947-Seetion llA-Workman chQJ'fed with use of threatening and abusive language against' a senior officer unbecoming of a disciplined worker-Dismissedfrom 1errie1-Punlshment, whether disproportionately heavy or ex,ceuive-Testsfor determining punishment. \ In order to avoid the charge of vindictiveness, justice, equity and fairplay demand that punishment must alwa)'S be oommensurate with tbe gravity of the offence charged. Io the development of industrial relation norms law has moved far from the days when quantum of punis_hment was considered a managerial function with the courts having no power to substitute their own decision in place of that of the management. More often, the courts found that, while the misconduct was proved, the punishment was disproportionately heavy.

As the situation then stood, courts reinained powerless and had to be passive sufferers incapable of curing the injustice. Parliament stepped in and enacted s. IJA of the Industrial Disputes Act by which the Labour Court is clothed with jurisdiction and. power to substitute its measure of punishment in place of the ( managerial wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified in the facts apd ctrcumsl•nces of the case. Tl:iis Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 can examine wbecher the LabOur Court bas properly approached the matter in exercising or rtfusing to exercise its power under section llA.

The words that the court must be "satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified" occurring in section llA indicace that even though misconduct is proved and a penalty bas to be imposed, the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge: was not justified in the faces andill circumstan~es of the case meaning thereby that the . punisbmept . was eith~ disproportiona! e. ly heavy or excessive. In the instant case the char~e against the appellant-workman. was chat be bad used threacening and abusive language against ~ senior officer unbecoming of a disciplined workman and bad adopced·a threatening poscure, subversive of discipline. An inquiry was conducted. On the recommendations of tho Inquiry Officer the workman was dismissed "from service. The La'lour Court upheld the order of dismissal and the High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 227.

On the question whether the· order of dismissal Was justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. HELD: The order of dismissal was not justified. [653 A] It is a well recognized prin~iple of jurisprudence, which permits penalty to be imposed for misconduct, that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. [653 C-DJ The appellant-workman had put in more than 14 years of service and bad been the Secretary of the ~orkers~ uniOn. The management had not shown that there was any blameworthy conduct on_ his part during the period of bis service. The misconduct aiJeged against him consisted of use of language which was indiscreet and improper, disclosing a 1hreatening posture. [653 E-F] · • When it is ·said that his language disclosed a threatening posture it was the subjective conclusion of the person who heard the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs.

Indiscreet, improper, abusive language may show lack of culture. But mere use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded 0 by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty . of dismissal from service. [653 F-H] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1531 of 1980. • Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1978 of the Alla. habad High Court in C. M. Writ No. 6788 of 1978 ,•. K. Goel for the Appellant • S. Markendeya for. Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by DESAI J. Appellant Ramakant Misra joined service in the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration· ('Administration' for short) which was then a Department . of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. On the constitution of U. P. Electricity Board .

('Board' for short), under the provisions of Electricity (supply)· Act, 1948 ('Act' for short), with effect from April 1, 1958, the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration stood transferred to the Board and the employees workinl! in the Admi11istr11tiol! were deeme of the case. And this Court is at preseni exercising jurisdiction under . Art. 136 over the decision of the Labour Court. Therefore this Court can examine , whether . the Labour: Court has properly approached the matter for exercising 'or refusing to exercise its ·8 power under s. II A. Before we can exercise the discretion conferred . by s. HA, the Couri has to be satisfied that the "order of discharge or dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

These words indicate that even though misconduct is proved and a penalty has to be imposed, the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge wa_s not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case meaning thereby that the punishment was either disproportionately heavy or_ excessive. As stated earlier, it is a well recogiiised principle of jurisprudence which permits penalty. to be imposed for misconduct that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. What has happened here. The appellant was employed since 1 1957. The alleged misconduct consisting of use of indiscreet or abusive or threatening fanguage occurred 011 November 18, 1971, meaning thereby that he had. putin 14 years of service. Appellant was·secretary of ihe workmen's Union. The respondent management has not shown that there was any blameworthy oonduct \Of . the appellant during the period of 14 years' service he rendered prior,to the date of misconduct and the misconduct consists-.

_ of language indiscreet, improper or disclosing a -·threatening posture. When it is said that language discloses a threatening posture. it is the subjective conclusion of the person who hears the . language because voice • modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet '-....... _ improper, abusive language may sh'ow lack of culture but merely the ··- use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any . ';ubsequent p·ositive action and not preceded by any blameworthy "'>I conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, we are satisfied ·that the order of dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court must interfere. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has completely misdirected iiself by looking at the dates contrary to record and has landed itself in an unsustainable order~ Therefore, we are required to interfere. What ouglii to \>~ the proper pu'! isqm,~n! ill this case 1 In ou( . ' .

654 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS . ·[1983] J SC. R. A . opinion, m such a situation withholding of two increments with future effect will be more than adequate punishment for. such a low paitl empl_oyee. Accordingly,- this appeal is allowed and the Award of the Labour Court is set aside as also the penalty imposed by the B ... management is quashed and set aside. The appellant is reinstated . with all the benefits, including the back wages, but his two increments falling due from the date of his termination of service be withheld , _ :with,! uture effect. 1 .. :Appeal. allowed. " . • r'.