AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioners, when terminated from service after a full fledged domestic enquiry, by orders of even date 16.2.2005 of the respondent Management, raised Industrial Disputes by filing petitions u/s. 10[4-A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ''Act'', registered as IID Nos. 39/2005, 40/2005 and 48/2005 respectively, before the Labour Court at Mysore, were clubbed along with IID Nos. 47/2005 and 53/2005, a common trial held and by Award dated 17.9.2010, petitions were dismissed. Hence these petitions.
Before the Labour Court, the preliminary issue over validity of the domestic enquiry, was answered in the affirmative, by order dated 17.10.2006, holding the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, which is final and binding, since, not challenged.
The Labour Court, extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to adduce evidence over victimization, where afterwards, appreciated the material on record and evidence both oral and documentary marshaled in the domestic enquiry and recorded a finding that the misconduct of abuse and assault of the official superior, being the Assistant Personal Manager by the petitioners along with two other employees, was proved, concurring with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. Regard being had to the fact that there were no mitigating circumstances by which a lesser punishment could be imposed and that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate, the Labour Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 11A of the ''Act''.
Labour Court, observed that the punishment of dismissal from service in matters of indiscipline, particularly, one of assaulting an official Superior at the work place being gross indiscipline following the opinion of this Court in ''Hombegowda Education Trust and others v. State of Karnataka and others'' 2006 [108] FLR 584 and other reported opinions, extracted in the Award impugned, declined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings, the evidence on record, and examined the Award impugned, it is useful to refer to the opinions of the Apex Court in (i) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, , whence it was observed that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. In addition, it was observed that be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. It was further held that a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. In addition, the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(ii) B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, , it was observed thus:
"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case."
Having regard to the limitation in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was evidence to establish that the charge of abuse and assault of official superiors was not proved cannot be countenanced. The Labour Court, being a fact finding Court, appreciated the material on record, and evidence both oral and documentary placed before the Enquiry Authority, to hold that there was proof of assault of the official superior by petitioners, at the place of work and accordingly concurred with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority.
In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court in the Award impugned.
It is not the case of the petitioners that there was violation of principles of natural justice either by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court.
Having regard to the findings recorded by the Labour Court, accepting the evidence adduced by the respondent Management over the allegations of abuse and assault of the officials along with two other employees and the conclusion arrived at based on such evidence, holding the petitioners guilty of the charges, power of judicial review does not require this Court to act as an ''appellate authority'' to re-appreciate or reexamine the evidence afresh, and arrive at an independent finding.
The Labour Court recorded a categorical finding that the punishment of dismissal from service was commensurate with the gravity of misconduct held proved and therefore declined to invoke its jurisdiction u/s. 11A of the ''Act'', to interfere with the punishment, which in my opinion does not call for interference.
It is elsewhere said that assault of superiors at place of work is gross indiscipline and the only punishment is dismissal from service which is neither disproportionate nor shocks one''s conscience.
Petitions devoid of merit, are rejected.