Full Judgment Text
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.19525/2005
Date of Decision : 05.5.2009
RAMU …… Petitioner
Through : Mr.C.K.Sharma,
Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI (NCT) & ORS. …… Respondents
Through : Mr.Arun Sakhija,
Advocate for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? YES
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged
the order dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003
passed by the learned Labour Court –I in ID No.481/1991 in
case titled M/s Cypher Pharma Vs. Its Workman Sh.Ramu.
th
2. By virtue of the first order dated 5 March, 2003, the
learned Labour Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the
domestic enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner
/workman on account of his alleged misconduct was fair and
proper and it did not warrant any interference. The allegations
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 1 of 6
of the petitioner of bias or the fact that his explanation was not
considered and was dismissed as being without any merit, were
not accepted. The record of the Inquiry Officer showed that the
explanation of the petitioner/workman was duly considered and
the inquiry was fair and proper.
3. By virtue of the award dated 13.10.2003, the learned
Labour Court had answered the reference made to it regarding
the termination of his services as being illegal or unjustified by
deciding the said reference against the petitioner. The learned
Labour Court after examining the evidence and the stand of the
respective sides came to a conclusion that the punishment of
dismissal which was imposed on the petitioner was perfectly
valid and legal.
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003 has preferred
the present writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the enquiry against the petitioner has not been
fair and proper and accordingly, the order which has been
handed down by the learned Labour Court on 05.3.2003 is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
was contested by the learned counsel for the respondent.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 2 of 6
8. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the enquiry against the petitioner
/workman was not fair and proper. The question as to whether
the enquiry against the delinquent is fair and proper is
essentially a question of fact which is to be adjudicated by the
learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court in the instant
case has examined the record and come to a finding of fact that
the enquiry was just fair and proper. Merely because this Court
is a superior Court it cannot sit as a Court of appeal and arrive
at a finding other than one which has been recorded by the
learned Labour Court and substitute its own view for the view
taken by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in the
submission made by counsel for the petitioner.
9. The second submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is to the effect that the punishment of dismissal
which has been imposed on the petitioner by the respondent is
grossly disproportionate to his proved misconduct. It was
contended that the proved misconduct against the petitioner was
using the uncultured language that ought not to be a ground for
dismissal from services. It was also contended that the petitioner
had rendered service of 23 years with the respondent
/management which was totally unblemished and free from any
stigma and therefore, this ought to have been taken into
consideration while imposing the punishment on the
petitioner/workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance in order to buttress his arguments that the
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 3 of 6
punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate on the judgment on the Apex Court in case
titled Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(1982) 3 SCC 346, wherein the facts of the said case the use of
the words indiscreet, indecent or threatening language to
superior only once in the course of long unblemished service was
held to be disproportionately excessive and set aside.
10. I have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the said
judgment. No doubt in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court
has come to a conclusion that the use of the indiscreet and
indecent language was not sufficient to result in dismissal. The
punishment of dismissal was considered to be disproportionate
but that is a judgment passed in 1982. In a recent past, there
has been a trend of the Supreme Court in upholding even the
order of removal and dismissal in cases where there is use of
abusive and filthy language. The Court had observed that the
use of such language against the superior Officer not only
disturbs the discipline in the Organization but also undermines
the authority of the superior officer. Reliance in this regard is
placed on Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India 1996 AIR (SC) 255
and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.Narawade 2005 AIR
(SC) 1993.
11. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the petitioner has
been admittedly visited with the punishment of dismissal for
using indiscreet, indecent, threatening or uncultured language.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 4 of 6
This use of indiscreet and indecent language against the superior
Officers disturbs the discipline of the Organization and if not
curbed with a heavy hand is likely to give impetus to persons
with such a proclivity to indulge in acts of such misconduct with
impunity.
12. The learned Labour Court has also examined the question
of quantum of punishment which has been imposed on the
petitioner and found it not to be disproportionate. The learned
Labour Court has placed reliance in this regard on the number of
judgments, which are – Punjab Dairy Development Corp. Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Kala Singh AIR 1997 SC 3661 and Sri
Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Anr. AIR
I JJL 425 1980 High Court, Madras as well as M/s Lastor
Electric and Trading Co. Vs. Baldev Lal AIR 1975 SC 1892.
13. Once the question of quantum of punishment has been
subjected to the judicial scrutiny by the learned Labour Court
below and it has arrived at a finding of fact that the punishment
of dismissal is not disproportionate. This Court cannot sit as a
Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the submissions afresh and in
the light of the facts then come to a finding contrary to what the
Labour Court has held. Even assuming such a finding is arrived
at by this Court, it cannot substitute its own views in place of the
views of the Labour Court. This Court in exercise of power of
judicial review can interfere with the quantum of punishment
when it is ex facie grossly disproportionate to the proved
misconduct. That is not the case in hand.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 5 of 6
14. Apart from this, the petitioner has not been able to show
any violation of principles of natural justice and illegality and
perversity and violation of any rule or regulation which would
warrant interference with the impugned judgment.
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition
and accordingly it deserves to be dismissed.
16. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner contended that
even the cheque for a sum of Rs.2,818/- was sent by the
respondent/Management as a notice period, this cheque has not
been encashed and was sent back to the respondent. It is stated
that the said amount may be released to the petitioner. The
respondents are directed to release the amount of the last drawn
wages of three month’s salary at the time when he left the
services along with interest @ 5% per annum on the aforesaid
amount till date. It is directed that the aforesaid amount shall be
released to the petitioner /workman within six weeks from today.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 05, 2009
RN
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 6 of 6
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.19525/2005
Date of Decision : 05.5.2009
RAMU …… Petitioner
Through : Mr.C.K.Sharma,
Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI (NCT) & ORS. …… Respondents
Through : Mr.Arun Sakhija,
Advocate for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? YES
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged
the order dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003
passed by the learned Labour Court –I in ID No.481/1991 in
case titled M/s Cypher Pharma Vs. Its Workman Sh.Ramu.
th
2. By virtue of the first order dated 5 March, 2003, the
learned Labour Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the
domestic enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner
/workman on account of his alleged misconduct was fair and
proper and it did not warrant any interference. The allegations
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 1 of 6
of the petitioner of bias or the fact that his explanation was not
considered and was dismissed as being without any merit, were
not accepted. The record of the Inquiry Officer showed that the
explanation of the petitioner/workman was duly considered and
the inquiry was fair and proper.
3. By virtue of the award dated 13.10.2003, the learned
Labour Court had answered the reference made to it regarding
the termination of his services as being illegal or unjustified by
deciding the said reference against the petitioner. The learned
Labour Court after examining the evidence and the stand of the
respective sides came to a conclusion that the punishment of
dismissal which was imposed on the petitioner was perfectly
valid and legal.
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 05.3.2003 and the award dated 13.10.2003 has preferred
the present writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the enquiry against the petitioner has not been
fair and proper and accordingly, the order which has been
handed down by the learned Labour Court on 05.3.2003 is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
was contested by the learned counsel for the respondent.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 2 of 6
8. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the enquiry against the petitioner
/workman was not fair and proper. The question as to whether
the enquiry against the delinquent is fair and proper is
essentially a question of fact which is to be adjudicated by the
learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court in the instant
case has examined the record and come to a finding of fact that
the enquiry was just fair and proper. Merely because this Court
is a superior Court it cannot sit as a Court of appeal and arrive
at a finding other than one which has been recorded by the
learned Labour Court and substitute its own view for the view
taken by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in the
submission made by counsel for the petitioner.
9. The second submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is to the effect that the punishment of dismissal
which has been imposed on the petitioner by the respondent is
grossly disproportionate to his proved misconduct. It was
contended that the proved misconduct against the petitioner was
using the uncultured language that ought not to be a ground for
dismissal from services. It was also contended that the petitioner
had rendered service of 23 years with the respondent
/management which was totally unblemished and free from any
stigma and therefore, this ought to have been taken into
consideration while imposing the punishment on the
petitioner/workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance in order to buttress his arguments that the
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 3 of 6
punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate on the judgment on the Apex Court in case
titled Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(1982) 3 SCC 346, wherein the facts of the said case the use of
the words indiscreet, indecent or threatening language to
superior only once in the course of long unblemished service was
held to be disproportionately excessive and set aside.
10. I have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the said
judgment. No doubt in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court
has come to a conclusion that the use of the indiscreet and
indecent language was not sufficient to result in dismissal. The
punishment of dismissal was considered to be disproportionate
but that is a judgment passed in 1982. In a recent past, there
has been a trend of the Supreme Court in upholding even the
order of removal and dismissal in cases where there is use of
abusive and filthy language. The Court had observed that the
use of such language against the superior Officer not only
disturbs the discipline in the Organization but also undermines
the authority of the superior officer. Reliance in this regard is
placed on Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India 1996 AIR (SC) 255
and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.Narawade 2005 AIR
(SC) 1993.
11. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the petitioner has
been admittedly visited with the punishment of dismissal for
using indiscreet, indecent, threatening or uncultured language.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 4 of 6
This use of indiscreet and indecent language against the superior
Officers disturbs the discipline of the Organization and if not
curbed with a heavy hand is likely to give impetus to persons
with such a proclivity to indulge in acts of such misconduct with
impunity.
12. The learned Labour Court has also examined the question
of quantum of punishment which has been imposed on the
petitioner and found it not to be disproportionate. The learned
Labour Court has placed reliance in this regard on the number of
judgments, which are – Punjab Dairy Development Corp. Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Kala Singh AIR 1997 SC 3661 and Sri
Gopalakrishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Anr. AIR
I JJL 425 1980 High Court, Madras as well as M/s Lastor
Electric and Trading Co. Vs. Baldev Lal AIR 1975 SC 1892.
13. Once the question of quantum of punishment has been
subjected to the judicial scrutiny by the learned Labour Court
below and it has arrived at a finding of fact that the punishment
of dismissal is not disproportionate. This Court cannot sit as a
Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the submissions afresh and in
the light of the facts then come to a finding contrary to what the
Labour Court has held. Even assuming such a finding is arrived
at by this Court, it cannot substitute its own views in place of the
views of the Labour Court. This Court in exercise of power of
judicial review can interfere with the quantum of punishment
when it is ex facie grossly disproportionate to the proved
misconduct. That is not the case in hand.
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 5 of 6
14. Apart from this, the petitioner has not been able to show
any violation of principles of natural justice and illegality and
perversity and violation of any rule or regulation which would
warrant interference with the impugned judgment.
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition
and accordingly it deserves to be dismissed.
16. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner contended that
even the cheque for a sum of Rs.2,818/- was sent by the
respondent/Management as a notice period, this cheque has not
been encashed and was sent back to the respondent. It is stated
that the said amount may be released to the petitioner. The
respondents are directed to release the amount of the last drawn
wages of three month’s salary at the time when he left the
services along with interest @ 5% per annum on the aforesaid
amount till date. It is directed that the aforesaid amount shall be
released to the petitioner /workman within six weeks from today.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 05, 2009
RN
WP(C) No.19525/2005 Page 6 of 6