Mr.Dilip Singh Negi v. M/s.Central Automobiles Ltd & Ors.

Mr.S.S.Pakale for the appellant Mr.V.P.Vaidya for respondent no.1 P.C. : CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : June 9, 2010

By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dt.19.6.02 dismissing the Writ Petition no. 4864 of 2001.

The submission of the appellant / petitioner is that the learned single Judge erred in rejecting the petition preferred by the Appellant and holding that the misconduct alleged against the appellant petitioner is proved.

The misconduct alleged against the appellant was abusing a fellow female worker in filthy language. The Industrial court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 2 Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 concluded that the Labour Court has passed an order ignoring the oral and documentary evidence. The said evidence conclusively proves that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct. Having found that the order of the Labour Court is perverse., the Industrial Court performed its duty as a revisional court and rightly interfered with the order of the Labour Court.

The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that in his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not permissible to re- appreciate and re-appraise the material all over again. It is in such circumstances that he dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant / petitioner. The learned single Judge has given cogent and satisfactory reasons while holding that the misconduct is proved. We are in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion. There is no error or serious legal infirmity pointed out to us. Having perused the record, we are of the view that the first submission must fail.

Having heard Mr. Pakale at some length, we find that on the quantum of punishment also no case is made out for interference with the order of the Industrial Court. Mr. Pakale submits that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the Industrial Court so also the learned Single Judge have not taken into account the events leading to the incident and the attending circumstances. 3

We are afraid, we cannot agree with Mr. Pakale because the Industrial Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment has observed that the conduct of the appellant is totally subversive of office discipline. This is a case of riotous and disorderly behaviour and he abused a lady co-employee. The abuse was in filthy language and the precise words used have been reproduced by the learned Member of the Industrial Court.

In our view such a conduct at work place is totally uncalled for and destroys the congenial atmosphere wherein the employees both male and female, are expected to work and discharge their duties. In such circumstances and going by the settled principles, even on the quantum of punishment, there is no reason to interfere. The incident cannot be said to be trivial nor was there any reason for the petitioner to react in the manner done. The punishment of dismissal is in consonance with the gravity and seriousness of misconduct. It is wholly proportionate.

We find that the learned single Judge has not committed any error nor his order is vitiated otherwise, so as to call for interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and dismissed. In view thereof, Civil Application No.315 of 2002 does not survive. The same is also dismissed as infructuous. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J 4