AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner designated as a trainee in the respondent-Industry, was on duty in the 1st shift on 20/7/2003, when Mr. Vittal Shakapur, the Head of Slitting Department called him to his cabin at about 12 noon and asked to explain the steps involved in carrying on the slitting operation of a film, whence the petitioner, it is alleged, said that he knew how to carry on the slitting operation of the film better than him and was not competent to ask anything about the slitting operation. In addition, it was alleged that, when Mr. Malik Babu. petitioner''s immediate superior, sitting on the chair in front of Mr. Vittal Shakapur, intervened by saying that the petitioner should not show disrespect to the head of the department, petitioner is alleged to have made an indecent remarks stating thus: (Vernacular matter deleted)
and when Mr. Vittal Shakapur stated that this would be reported to the Management, petitioner is alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences stating thus:
(Vernacular matter deleted)
and thereafter left the cabin.
The matter when reported to the disciplinary authority, led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet/enquiry notice. Petitioner submitted his explanation dt. 6/8/2003, domestic enquiry was held extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, following which the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charge proved. Respondent, by memo dt. 15/10/2003-Annex.F, enclosed a copy of the report of the enquiry officer and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed. Petitioner submitted an explanation dt. 21/10/2003. The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation and on an independent assessment of the material on record, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and accordingly by memo dt. 25/10/2003 dismissed the petitioner from training and forfeited the gratuity amount under Sec. 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 2. That order when called in question in a petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ''ID Act'', registered as I.I.D. No. 165/03 before the Labour Court, Mysore, was resisted by filing counter statement of the respondent-Industry denying the allegations. In the premise of pleadings of parties, Labour Court framed 5 issues, the 2nd of which related to validity of the domestic enquiry which was treated as a preliminary issue and after recording the evidence of enquiry officer examined as MW5 and 19 documents marked as Exs. M1 to M19, the Labour Court by order dt. 6/11/2006 answered issue No. 2 in the affirmative holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper.
Petitioner was examined as WW-1 and no documents were marked. Labour Court in the premise of pleadings of parties, more appropriately, the language deployed by the petitioner, as alleged in the charge sheet and also the explanation to the charge sheet, opined that it was more of an insolent behaviour. At paragraph 14, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the respondent cannot be said to be excessive and it is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in L.K. VERMA VS. HMT LTD. & ANOTHER 2006 (108) FLR 1108 (SC), holding that verbal abuse is sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. Again at paragraph 19 of the award, the Labour Court having extracted the decisions of the High Courts of Allahabad and Madras, held thus:
The law laid down by the Apex Court is the law of the land. In view of the dictum laid down in the above referred Apex court decisions, the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management for abusing the superiors by workman cannot be said to be disproportionate.
At paragraph 22 of the award, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the words uttered by the petitioner were not filthy words and at most, it amounts to insolent behaviour, the cause for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 11-A of the ID Act to modify the order of dismissal to one of removal from service and entitling the petitioner to gratuity by the award dt. 9/9/2010. Hence this petition by the workman.
Sri. S. B. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is correct in his submission that the findings at paragraphs 14 and 19 of the award are only views recorded by the Labour Court based on the decisions noticed therein and not a finding over the charges.
The fact that the charge against the petitioner is proved, cannot be doubted and the only question is, whether the use of the words by the petitioner were verbal abuse showing disrespect to the official superiors or only an insolent behaviour as opined by the Labour Court?
The word "insolent" in New Websters Dictionary, College Edition 4th re-print, 1988, means - [contrary to custom, immoderate, haughty, insolent) of a person, saucily disrespectful; of language or conduct, rudely overbearing-N rudely disrespectful person.- in.so.lence.n. Extreme discourtesy; impudence. -
The bare perusal of the statements by the petitioner extracted supra, in the context in which they were made, is verbal abuse of the official superiors and animates that the petitioner is a rudely disrespectful person. Therefore the Labour Court was not fully, justified in recording a finding that the words deployed by the petitioner tantamount to insolent behaviour.
As is apparent from the award impugned, the interference was also on the ground of poverty condition, and ends of justice require to lessen the rigor of the punishment entitling the petitioner to gratuity. Since the respondent-Industry has not called in question the award, it is unnecessary to interfere with the findings & conclusions.
In the result, writ petition, devoid of merit is accordingly rejected.