The General Electric Co. of India Ltd. Nani vs Labour Court and Others

M. Katju, J.—I have heard Sri V.R. Agrawal learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

This writ Petition has been filed against the impugned award of Lahour Court, Allahabad on 30-6-198). (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). The dispute which was referred u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial" Disputes Act was regarding the termination of the service of Respondent no 2 by the order of the Management dated 18-8-1975. The Petitioners a company which is situated at Naini Allahabad, Respondent no 2 was a workmen in the said factory. It is alleged that on 25-11-1974 Respondent No 2 committed various acts of misconduct for which a charge sheet dated 30-11-1974 was issued against him. It is alleged against the Respondent No. 2 that on 23-11-1974 the Director of Overseas G.E.C England had come to the factory to lay the foundation stone for an expansion project. He was accompanied by other high officers including the Managing Director G.E.C., India, General Manager Works Manager and Chief Administrative Officer'' of G.E.C. Naini Sri Kocher. It is alleged that Sri Feroz Ahmad stopped the vehicle and instigated the workers to beat up these officials and consequently the Overseas, Director Mr. Pohil and his driver were beaten up, Sri Kochar''s spectables were broken and Mr. Pohil was beaten and he was lifted and taken away from the spot. In support of this charge Sri Kochar was examined and this evidence has been believed by the Enquiry Officers as well as the Labour Court (vide page 60 of the writ petition). The Labour Court has considered the matter in paragraphs II and 13 of the award.

Sri R.S. Pandey, Security Officer supported the version of Sri Kochar and his evidence has also been believed.

The Enquiry Officer found the Respondent No. 2 guilty in respect of charges No. 2 and 3 and the Labour Court has also agreed with these findings. However, the Labour Court held that she punishment of termination of service against the Respondent No. 2 is disproportionate to the offence as there were earlier no complaints against him and he has been acquitted in the criminal case and hence he should be given another opportunity to reform himself. In my opinion the acquittal in a criminal case is not relevant to the domestic enquiry or the proceedings before the Labour Court. In the criminal case the standard of proof is different from that of a civil proceedings. Moreover, in my opinion the charges established against the Respondent No. 2 are so the serious that he does not deserve to be reinstated. No factory can run if a worker behaves in the manner in which Respondent No. 2 has behaved. To instigate the workers to beat up the Director and Chief Administrative Officer is such an offence that no leniency can be shown. In my opinion, the Labour Court erred and acted arbitrarily in setting aside the order of termination, particularly, after it had found that the main charges against the Respondent No. 2 have been proved (vide paragraphs 12 and 13 of the award. It is no doubt true that ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the quantum of punishment, but this is not an invariable rule, if the court is satisfied that the Labour Court has acted arbitrarily it can interfere with the award. In the present case I am satisfied that the Labour Court acted arbitrarily in setting aside the termination order. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the punishment of termination was disproportionate to such a serious offence. I partly set aside the award of the Labour Court dated 30-6-1981. to the extent that it has set aside the termination order of Respondent No. 2 and has ordered his reinstatement, and I modify the award and hold that the termination order against the Respondent No. 2 will stand and the Labour Court erred in interfering with the same.

Petition is allowed. No order to costs.