Mahendra Nissan Allwyns Ltd. vs M.P. Siddappa And Anr.
- CitationAIRONLINE 1998 SC 177
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a workman has been found guilty of leading other employees out of the factory in defiance of security, entering restricted administrative areas without authority, abusing and threatening senior management in vulgar language, and misbehaving towards multiple executives, the charges are serious in nature and removal from service is a proportionate punishment; a High Court reviewing an Industrial Tribunal's award cannot interfere with the Tribunal's order of dismissal merely by characterizing the charges as not serious or the punishment as disproportionate, where the factual findings support the gravity of the misconduct.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was made on a writ petition filed by the first respondent workman against the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, which had confirmed the order of removal of service of the first respondent from the employment of the appellant. The High Court said: "We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court. The punishment imposed against the petitioner workman is not proportionate to the charges leveled against; him. Moreover, the charges leveled against the petitioner workman are not serious in nature. Instead of removing the petitioner from service as per the orders of the disciplinary authority, the Labour Court should have modified the order to that of reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages (appointment afresh)."
3, The High Court found no fault with the finding that the charges had been proved. It found that the charges were not serious in nature and the punishment that was imposed was disproportionate.
4. We do not agree with the High Court. The charges are of a serious nature. The first respondent was found to have led out workmen from the factory premises regardless of the challenge by the Security Guard. Along with these workmen the first respondent entered the administrative building of the appellant and the room of the Deputy General Manager. The Deputy General Manager and Manager (Personnel) were abused in filthy language and threatened, examples of which have been given. Misbehavior was also proved against the first respondent in his conduct with five executives of the appellants. If these are not serious charges against a workman worthy of his dismissal from service, we do not know what can be. The High Court was quite wrong in the conclusion that it reached and in the order that it passed. The punishment imposed against the respondent must remain unaltered.
5. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free