ORDER
Ajit Singh, J.
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 20-3-1995 Annexure P-13 passed in Appeal No. 320/ MPIR/93 by the Industrial Court, Bhopal Bench, whereby the appeal of the respondent No. 1 has been partly allowed and the order dated 12-2-1988 Annexure P-10 of the Labour Court, Bhopal, directing reinstatement of petitioner with 50% backwages has been set aside.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. The respondents recruited the petitioner on 5-11-1962 on the post of Security Guard and then by order dated 29-7-1974 promoted him as Senior Security Guard. Petitioner also earned special increments for rendering good service. The certificate dated 27-10-1977 in this regard issued by the Senior Personnel Officer is Annexure P-3. But for the impugned punishment of removal from service by order dated 19-6-1982 Annexure P-6 the petitioner had a long unblemished service record to his credit.
4. On 4-11-1981, the petitioner was posted on security duty at the 7th Eastern Gate of Block No. III from 15:30 to 20:30 hours and since that gate was under construction, no exist was allowed from there. At 14:30 hours petitioner noticed a person passing through that gate. He, therefore, asked that person to immediately return and seek his exit from the main gate of the factory premises. The person, who unlawfully wanted to use the gate in question, was V.N. Gupta, Senior Production Engineer, in the factory. Unfortunately, V.N. Gupta, instead of acceding to the justified request of the petitioner for not using the gate and obeying the prohibitory orders of the factory, felt that his vanity was hurt. He, therefore, refused to return and became adamant for using that very gate for exist. The stubborn behaviour of V.N. Gupta led to heated exchange of words between him and the petitioner. At that time petitioner is said to have abused and manhandled V.N. Gupta thereby exceeding his right as Senior Security Guard.
5. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 8-11-1981 (Annexure P-5) by the respondents. The charge against the petitioner was that, while performing his duty at the gate in question, he was reading a novel and was not alert as a result of which V.N. Gupta was able to pass through that gate and when he requested V.N. Gupta to immediately return, both got involved in a verbal duel. It was further alleged that he manhandled V.N. Gupta by twisting his arm and slapping him.
6. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The Disciplinary Authority was dissatisfied with the same and, therefore, ordered a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his report gave a finding that charge against the petitioner was proved. Relying upon the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent No. 1 by order dated 19-6-1982 (Annexure P-6) removed the petitioner from service with immediate effect.
7. Aggrieved by his removal from service, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing an application under Section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act and prayed for quashing of the order dated 19-6-1982 (Annexure P-6). Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as a witness and from the side of employer one Ram Kumar alone was examined.
8. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence and materials on record, gave a finding that although the proceedings of the enquiry were proper, the finding of the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner was perverse. It held that the petitioner was admittedly on duty at the gate from which exit was prohibited and since it was not the case of V.N. Gupta, that he was authorized to use that gate, the latter, in all fairness, ought to have acceded to the request of former. It further held that had V.N. Gupta obeyed the prohibitory orders of the factory on request of the petitioner for not using the gate, the unfortunate incident would have never occurred. The Labour Court gave a finding that petitioner had acted bonafide in discharge of his duties and V.N. Gupta was also equally responsible for the incident. Taking into consideration the long excellent service record of the petitioner, the Labour Court held that the punishment of his removal from service was disproportionate, unreasonable and excessive. It, therefore, by order dated 12-2-1988 (Annexure P-10) set aside the order dated 19-6-1982 (Annexure P-6) of the removal of petitioner from service and directed for his reinstatement with 50% back wages.
9. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court against the aforesaid order dated 12-2-1988 (Annexure P-10) of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court agreed with the finding of the Labour Court that V.N. Gupta passed through the gate in question despite its use was prohibited. It, however, held that there is enough evidence to establish that petitioner at that time misbehaved with V.N. Gupta by uttering foul language and manhandling him. The Industrial Court was of the view that the petitioner instead of misbehaving with V.N. Gupta ought to have acted soberly and should have made a complaint with the management against him. It upheld the finding of the Labour Court that in the fact situation of the case punishment of removal from service of the petitioner was too harsh. It also held that the Labour Court did not commit any illegality in directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Despite this, the Industrial Court held that the petitioner was not entitled for any backwages, as he had misbehaved with his superior officer. It did not stop here and went on to observe that the petitioner has now become old and feeble and hence he will not be able to discharge the duties of Senior Security Guard. On this reasoning, the Industrial Court held that no useful purpose would be served in directing reinstatement of the petitioner more so when he has been left with only seven months for retirement. The Industrial Court, however, gave the liberty to the respondents either to reinstate the petitioner or to pay him the wages for the remaining period left for his retirement. A copy of the impugned order dated 20-3-1995 of the Industrial Court is Annexure P-13.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Industrial Court committed an illegality in interfering with the order of the Labour Court in the fact situation of the present case. It was also argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner had become old and feeble and since he would not be able to perform the duties of Senior Security Guard, no useful purpose would be served in reinstating him. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents defended the aforesaid order of the Industrial Court. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of L.K. Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd. and Anr. , wherein verbal abuse by an employee to his superior has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal.
11. Our country is governed by rule of law. All persons, therefore, must act in accordance with law irrespective of their position in office or society. Indiscipline at the work places should not be tolerated. Neither the employer nor employee can be allowed to break the discipline with impunity. Onus to maintain discipline is more on the senior official at the work place and his conduct should set an example to his subordinates. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly on duty as a Senior Security Guard at the gate in question which was officially prohibited for exit. He was, therefore, under an obligation not to allow any exit from that gate be that of an officer of the factory. As already mentioned above, V.N. Gupta was a Senior Production Engineer in the factory. It was not the case of V.N. Gupta that he was authorized to use that gate despite prohibitory orders. He, therefore, should not have used that gate for exit and when the petitioner had requested him to return he, in all fairness, ought to have acceded to the request. Unfortunately, V.N. Gupta felt that his vanity was hurt on being asked by a small employee (Security Guard) to return. Instead of setting an example to his subordinates that no one is above law, he entered into a verbal duel with the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner was constrained to use some force to uphold the prohibitory order of the factory. By this act of the petitioner, V.N. Gupta felt abused and manhandled. Had he obeyed the prohibitory orders of the factory by not using the gate and acceded to the request of the petitioner, the unfortunate incident would never have occurred. On the other hand, if the petitioner had succumbed to the pressure of V.N. Gupta for allowing him to use the gate he would have been guilty for dereliction of duty. Thus, under the fact situation of the case, the Labour Court, in my considered opinion, did not commit any illegality in holding that V.N. Gupta was equally responsible for the incident and the punishment of removal from service of the petitioner was disproportionate, unreasonable and excessive. The Labour Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order of removal of petitioner and directing his reinstatement with 50% backwages.
12. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 20-3-1995 (Annexure P-13) agreed with the Labour Court that the punishment of removal from service of petitioner was too harsh. It also held that the Labour Court did not commit any illegality in directing his reinstatement. It, however, held that as the petitioner had misbehaved with his superior officer, he was not entitled for any backwages. In my considered opinion, the Industrial Court lost sight of the fact that V.N. Gupta was equally responsible for the unfortunate incident. V.N. Gupta was admittedly not authorized to use the gate for exit. He, as a responsible senior officer, ought not to have used the gate and when the petitioner, in the capacity of Senior Security Guard, had requested him to return he, in all fairness, should have acceded to the request. The conduct of V.N. Gupta at that time was not of a disciplined officer, which is a strong mitigating factor in favour of the petitioner. The Industrial Court further committed an illegality in holding that the petitioner had become old and feeble and no useful purpose would be served in directing his reinstatement. It is to be noticed that by the time the Industrial Court passed the impugned order the petitioner had already suffered 13 years of agony of his removal from service. Petitioner was attending the Court proceedings personally. Any person who is required to attend 13 years of Court proceedings for justice without any assistance would naturally become sick and infirm. Even otherwise, it was never the case of respondents that the petitioner was medically unfit for duty. The order dated 20-3-1995 (Annexure P-13) of the Industrial Court is, therefore, not sustainable under law. It is accordingly set aside and the order of Labour Court is restored. The date of superannuation of the petitioner as per the order of Industrial Court was 15-10-1995. The petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from that date.
13. It is true that in the case of L.K. Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has held that verbal abuse to a superior officer was sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. The case in hand is distinguishable from the case of L.K. Verma (supra). In that case, the employee admitted that he had abused his superior and had no justification for his conduct. In the present case, the conduct of the superior officer was itself blameworthy, which gave rise to the incident.
14. The petition is, therefore, allowed with a cost of Rs. 6000/-.