JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 26.4.2003 passed by Labour Court-IV, Karkardooma, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Respondent No. 3 Mr. Roshal Lal Bhatia was working as an electrician with the petitioner since 11.4.1975 on temporary basis. He was posted to look after the Sound & Light show which was one of the attractions of Nehru Museum. He was found negligent and careless in his duties as an electrician and he also entered into a scuffle with security guards and security officer on 22.6.1983 because of which the show had to be cancelled on that day. Following articles of charges were framed against him:
Article I
Shri Roshal Lal, while functioning as electrician, did not carry out periodical checks of the electrical installations of the Sound & Light spectacle as per written and oral instructions given to him from time to time. As a result of his carelessness and negligence all the light effects of the spectacle could not come in the shows and this could not be viewed by the spectators. Shri Roshal Lal, thus brought disrepute to the organisation.
Shri Roshal Lal by his above acts exhibited lack of devotion of duty and conduct unbecoming of an employee of the Society thereby violating Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article II.
Shri Roshal Lal, while functioning as Electrician, failed to maintain, discipline and correct behavior towards the Security Officer, who also looks after the work of Manager, Sound & Light Unit. He shouted at him and abused him on 22nd June, 1983.
Shri Roshal Lal by his above acts violated Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article III.
Shri Roshal Lal while functioning as Electrician, tampered with the switch board of the Sound & Light Spectacle shortly before the start of the Hindi Show on 22nd June, 1983 which resulted in short circuiting, damage to the rotary switch and dislocation of the entire supply system. His tampering with the Switch Board could have caused severe damage to the equipment of the spectacle.
Shri Roshal Lal by his above acts exhibited lack of conduct unbecoming of an employee of the Society thereby violating Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. Petitioner set up a board of enquiry consisting of two senior members to enquire into the charges and respondent participated in the enquiry, filed his response to the charges, witnesses were examined by both the sides and after completing enquiry proceedings board of enquiry gave its findings on 15.10.1984 holding that charges framed against the respondent were proved. The petitioner accepted the report of board of enquiry and passed an order compulsorily retiring respondent No. 3 from the service of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal in following terms:
Whether the termination of services of Rosahl Lal Bhatia is illegal, and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?
4. Petitioner had also taken a stand that it was a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. Its function was to maintain a Museum of Jawaharlal Nehru personalia, memorabilia, mementos and other objects pertaining to his life and Indian Freedom Movement. It was also looking after library and assets of the Museum. It was not an industry.
Tribunal framed following issues:
(i) Whether the management is not an industry as claimed in preliminary issue No. 1 in the written statement? If so, its effect.
(ii) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the Management was not fair and proper in accordance with the principles of natural justice? If so, its effect.
(iii) As per terms of reference.
Tribunal decided issues No. 1 & 2 against the petitioner vide its order dated 4.10.1999. After holding that enquiry was not fair, Tribunal gave an opportunity to the management, as prayed, to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal after both the parties led evidence on the charges. On appreciating the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the only charge proved against the workman/respondent No. 3 was Article No. 2. Tribunal observed that workman was guilty of indiscipline and shouted at & abused the security officer. After holding that the above charge was proved, the Tribunal observed that the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to workman was highly disproportionate. Workman had about 8 1/2 years of service to his credit and there was no other blemish against him, the Tribunal, therefore, directed that the workman be reinstated with full back wages and continuing service.
5. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the Tribunal on the following grounds:
i) Tribunal went wrong in holding that the petitioner was an industry, petitioner was not covered by the principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Works v. A. Rajappa AIR 1977 SCC. Since in that case Supreme Court had carved out the exceptions to the wide meaning of industry and the exceptions included professions, clubs, research institutions amongst others.
ii) The findings of the Tribunal that the enquiry was not fair were perverse since respondent No. 3 had fully participated in the proceedings, examined his witnesses and at no stage raised any protest.
iii) The principles of natural justice were fully complied with while conducting the enquiry,
iv) The compulsory retirement, after finding him guilty did not cast any stigma on him and could not be held as a disproportionate punishment.
v) The Tribunal could not have interfered in the punishment awarded and it erred in ordering reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 with all consequential reliefs.
6. In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 3 took the stand that he was posted in Sound & Light show, which was conducted for earning profit, therefore, the petitioner was an industry and the respondent was a workman. The respondent quoted the judgment delivered by Tribunal and contended that his compulsory retirement was a malafide act, the punishment imposed on him was highly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him. Enquiry was not conducted as per principles of natural justice, respondent was denied the assistance and help of some other government servant permissible under law and the attitude of the board of enquiry was vindictive.
7. I have heard the counsel for parties and perused the record. As far as the contention of the petitioner that it was not an industry is concerned, I consider that in view of Supreme Court’s observation in State of UP v. Jaibir Singh 2005(4) Scale 696 and matter is pending before larger bench of Supreme Court the issue can wait and this writ petition can be decided on other issues.
8. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground that workman had raised an objection that the members of the board of enquiry were close friends of Officers of Delhi Administration and he apprehended that justice would not be done to him. The management did not remove this misgiving of the workman and brushed aside the objection. One of the principles of natural justice is that the person charged of misconduct should have faith in the board of enquiry/enquiry officer. If there was apprehension in the mind of the respondent that justice will not be done then the principles of natural justice stand violated.
9. I consider that if, this argument is allowed to stand, no enquiry can proceed further. A workman can always make an allegation against the enquiry officer and say that he has no faith in him and the enquiry officer will be stopped from proceeding further. If next enquiry officer is appointed after sometime, he can again make some allegations against him and this can go on. It is settled law that in case of domestic enquiries broad principles of natural justice have to be followed. Supreme Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam observed that the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched too far nor can they be applied in vacuum. If a person alleges violation of principles of natural justice he has to demonstrate how it has caused prejudice to him. Mere making allegations that the members of Board of enquiry were friend of the Officers of management would not convert an otherwise fair enquiry into an unfair enquiry. The respondent had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal did not give finding as to how respondent was prejudiced. An alleged apprehension of not getting justice at the hands of an enquiry officer, without giving any instance of professional misconduct of enquiry officer as presiding officer does not vitiate the enquiry. One who makes allegations of vindictiveness must substantiate the allegations, from the proceeding sheets of the enquiry. The Tribunal, therefore, misdirected itself in holding that the enquiry was not fair and natural.
10. A perusal of award of Tribunal dated 3.10.2002 shows that it laboured under a misconceived notion. The Tribunal observed that it was a settled law that during an enquiry a misconduct has to be proved beyond reasonable doubts as in criminal trials. The Tribunal further observed that an enquiry cannot be discarded if it is based on inadequate evidence.
11. Despite applying the standards under which the Labour Court was labouring, it came to the conclusion that the charge of indiscipline stood proved against the respondent. After holding that the charge of indiscipline stood proved against the respondent, Labour Court held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate.
12. In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2006 SCC (L&S) 133 Supreme Court held:
In M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma this Court held: (SCC p. 408, para 9)
9. In the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the workplace, obviously in the presence of other employees. This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization. Discipline at the workplace in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his service, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. We have, already referred to the views of this Court. To quote Jack Chan,
discipline is a form of civilly responsible behavior which helps maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of society at large.
Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an organization like the employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not violative of one’s natural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees. When in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.
This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach to the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the workplace/industrial undertakings received a setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline; with impunity. Our country is governed by rule law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, as noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employees unless an appropriate case is made out therefore. The Tribunal being interior to this Court was bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case in question. The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the same. (para 30)
13. I consider that while considering the punishment awarded by the management for a proved misconduct of indiscipline, Labour Court has to keep in mind the entire scenario under which the enquiry is held. In this case, the respondent No. 3 was an electrician solely responsible for Sound & Light show. He was to manage the entire electric connections and operations of the show. If the show did not run no other person could be held responsible. The petitioner had to cancel the show due to the negligence of the respondent No. 3, as per the enquiry report, and when the respondent’s work was being checked he not only picked up quarrel with the security officer but gave filthy abuses to him and got out of himself. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade , Supreme Court observed as under:
20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certain not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment.
14. In the present case a distrust developed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, after the incident, for which respondent No. 3 was held responsible. The respondent being electrician of the show can cause the show shut down any time and put petitioner in embarrassment. Reinstatement of respondent under such circumstances could not have been ordered by the Labour Court.
15. Accordingly, I allow this writ petition and the award dated 26.4.2003 passed by the Labour Court -IV is set aside.