Writ courts cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence absent perversity or breach of natural justice.

The employee, who had served as a Field Sales Officer and was later designated District Manager, was transferred from Barasat to Chennai with effect from 1 September 2013. After he declined the transfer, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated his employment on 14 March 2014.

The employee challenged the termination before the Labour Court under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that he was a workman, found the enquiry invalid and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages.

The company challenged that award by writ petition.

1. Whether the employee was a “workman” and the proceeding under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable.

2. Whether the disciplinary enquiry into the employee’s refusal to join at Chennai was legally valid and consistent with natural justice.

3. Whether the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement and 50% back wages could stand in light of the disciplinary findings and the limits of writ review.

Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided the basis for the employee’s Labour Court proceeding.

In reviewing disciplinary proceedings, a writ court is generally not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority; interference may be warranted where findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse, procedurally unfair, or the punishment is disproportionate.

The Court relied on Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dalbir Singh for principles governing disciplinary enquiries, standards of proof, judicial review and proportionality.

The Court treated the disciplinary proceedings as having been initiated because the employee did not comply with the transfer order.

It concluded that the company had provided him an opportunity to participate, which he declined, and had followed the applicable procedure and principles of natural justice.

Applying the restricted scope of writ review, the Court stated that it could not reassess the evidence and found no perversity or abuse of process in the disciplinary action.

It therefore rejected the Labour Court’s basis for setting aside the termination and granting reinstatement and back wages.

Connected applications were disposed of consequentially.