Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs Labour Court and Another

K.S. Bhalla J.—Baldev Singh-workman, was appointed as chowkidar in the establishment of Post Graduate Insitute of Medical Education and Research--Management, in September, 1980, on daily wage basis. His services were regularised on 30th October, 1981. Thereafter, while he was working on temporary basis, he is said to have committed misconduct by taking liquor and creating nuisance under influence of liquor by undressing himself at the canteen of lady doctors'' hostel within the campus of the management at 9.30 p.m. A preliminary enquiry was held by the management and having found that the workman was guilty of misconduct of serious nature, his services were terminated on 31st June 1982. At the relevant time, the workman was employed as chowkidar in the lady doctors'' hostel, although the alleged occurrence took place beyond his duty hours.

Baldev Singh challenged termination of his services and served a demand notice on the management. The management did not accede to his demands and, ultimately, the Chandigarh Administation referred the dispute u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Labour Court gave award on 20th March, 1986 (annexure P-5) and found, after recording evidence of the parties, that the charge of misconduct stood proved against the workman. After accepting the allegations of the management in toto, it was also observed in the award by the Labour Court that the act of the workman in behaving in such an unbecoming manner in the lady doctors'' hostel was highly condemnable. However, holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the act of misconduct, the reinstatement of the workman was ordered with continuity of service but without back wages and past increments. The reinstatement of Baldev Singh has been assailed by the management through this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The workman in turn has preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 5581 of 1986, seeking back wages and increments contending that the Labour Court had illegally and arbitrarily withheld his back wages and past increments. This order of ours shall dispose of both the writ petitions arising ut of the same award between the parties.

To set up the misconduct, it has been alleged against Baldev Singh that he took liquor on 29th June, 1982, with chowkidars Kishan Pal and Kesar Singh and under influence of liquor misbehaved at the canteen of lady doctors'' hostel within the premises of the PGI. In so doing he undressed himself by removing his trousers and attempted to break the crockery of the canteen. The Labour Court in its award has found in favour of the management so far as commission of act of hooliganism on the part of the workman is concerned and it is crystal clear from the award that the workman was found liable for gross misconduct. This finding of the Labour Court is completely justified from the facts and circumstances of the case. The management in this case is an institute which is visited by all types of persons. Number of females is equally large both in the staff in the form of lady doctors, nurses, mid-wives etc., and patients and their attendants. Canteen of the lady doctors'' hostel is a place which is expected to be visited by larger number of females. To go there under influence of liquor and then misbehave by undressing oneself particularly through removal of trousers, for obvious reasons, amounts to an act of gross misconduct and the same cannot be taken to be an action becoming of a Government servant. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that charge of misconduct stood proved against the workman cannot be assailed.

In fact, through both the writ petitions, it is the quantum of punishment which has been assailed. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction and power to substitute its measure of punishment in place of managerial wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of dismissal or termination of services was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and it may not be justified to say that it can act only when order of termination of services was passed to victimise the workman or on account of unfair labour practice. It is a well recognised principle of jurisprudence which permits penalty to be imposed for misconduct that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. This view of ours finds support from Rama Kant Misra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ).

However, when the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of employer as an appellate body. Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before Labour Court/Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered by it except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation. In any case, the workman in question is guilty of such a gross misconduct that the Labour Court cannot be taken to be justified in ordering his reinstatement. The workman in question was employed as chowkidar in lady doctors'' hostel of the P.G.I. and thus was daily bound to come in contact with a number of ladies in general. A lady doctor, a nurse or any other female employee of the management, a lady attendant of a patient or even a female patient of young and tender age can even be expected to be confronted with the workman by herself in solitude occasionally, being chowkidar of lady doctors'' hostel or on account of his access to the various female wards and corridors of the Institute in his said capacity during or beyond duty hours, particularly when campus of this Institute is fairly spread. It cannot be lost sight of that on many occasions such doctors and female employees are on night duty in the Institute. Class IV employees of this Institute are, therefore, required to possess better norms with regard to morality and should not be such who could behave in an unbecoming manner leading to the extent of vulgarity.

Regulation 38 of the regulations governing Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, states that its employees shall be governed by the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said rules provides that every Government servant shall, at all times, do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. In the light thereof, it is completely off the point that alleged misconduct took place beyond duty hours of the workman.

The occurrence took place at 9.30 p.m. at the canteen of lady doctors'' hbstel at which time there could be expected to be number of persons moving about in the Institute. Particularly, in view of the time of evening meals, there were bound to be a number of persons present at the canteen including residents of the doctors'' hostel and

others. In other words, the time was such that objectionable behaviour of the workman could not be ignored. The place admittedly was within the precincts of the Institute. The action of the workman in question i.e., Baldev Singh, can neither be compared with that of his two colleagues, Kishan Pal and Kesar Singh, who simply took liquor and did not undress themselves. In fact, they did not do anything beyond taking of liquor.

It also weighed with the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, as is clear from annexure P-5, that it was a single act of misconduct. Apart from the fact that it cannot be treated as a single act of misconduct because taking of liquor at the suggested place or in any case to roam about at the canteen of lady doctors'' hostel under the influence of liquor by itself is an act of misconduct. What is more important is that person can stoop down to the extent of behaviour in an indecent or obscence manner at a public place of importance within the campus of the Institute. Such an act of immorality cannot be tolerated and the Labour Court itself has remarked in its award that the act of the workman in behaving in such an unbecoming manner in the lady doctors'' hostel is highly condemnable. The order of reinstatement of the workman, therefore, cannot be sustained. More so, when termination of the service of the workman cannot be attributed to any mala fides or to unfair labour practice on the part of the management or the employer. For the aforesaid reasons, to our mind, unbecoming and vulgar elements are required to be kept out of such institutions to avoid possible exploitation of destitute and helpless females.

In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is allowed, the award of the Tribunal, to the extent it directs reinstatement of the workman, is quashed and order of termination of his services is maintained. The writ petition of the workman is dismissed. No order for costs is, however, made in any of the two writ petitions.