CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1998) 11 SC CK 0001

Mahendra Nissan Allwyns Ltd. vs M.P. Siddappa and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 13 November 1998 · Citation: (2000) 1 LLJ 424 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 1067

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. P. Bharucha, J · A. P. Misra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.A. No. 5750 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was made on a writ petition filed by the first respondent workman against the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, which had confirmed the order of removal of service of the first respondent from the employment of the appellant. The High Court said:

"We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court. The punishment imposed against the petitioner workman is not proportionate to the charges leveled against; him. Moreover, the charges leveled against the petitioner workman are not serious in nature. Instead of removing the petitioner from service as per the orders of the disciplinary authority, the Labour Court should have modified the order to that of reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages (appointment afresh)."

3, The High Court found no fault with the finding that the charges had been proved. It found that the charges were not serious in nature and the punishment that was imposed was disproportionate.

4.

We do not agree with the High Court. The charges are of a serious nature. The first respondent was found to have led out workmen from the factory premises regardless of the challenge by the Security Guard. Along with these workmen the first respondent entered the administrative building of the appellant and the room of the Deputy General Manager. The Deputy General Manager and Manager (Personnel) were abused in filthy language and threatened, examples of which have been given. Misbehavior was also proved against the first respondent in his conduct with five executives of the appellants. If these are not serious charges against a workman worthy of his dismissal from service, we do not know what can be. The High Court was quite wrong in the conclusion that it reached and in the order that it passed. The punishment imposed against the respondent must remain unaltered.

5.

The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.