New Delhi, March 8
Close on the heels of its recent verdict upholding dismissal of an employee by the employer for abusing his superior during duty, the Supreme Court has ruled that firing a worker for assaulting his boss could not be interfered upon by the courts as maintaining discipline at the workplace “is not slavery”.
Maintaining discipline at the workplace in an organisation “is the sine quo non for its efficient working… when an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not open to the Labour Court or an
Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved,” a Bench of Mr Justice N Santosh
Hegde, Mr Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr Justice P K Balasubramanyan ruled.
The court said the only condition for such dismissal was that the charge against him should be fully proved by the inquiry officer, appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA).
The ruling came on an appeal of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) challenging the Labour Court and MP High Court orders restoring the service of board worker Jagdish Chandra Sharma, who had been found guilty of hitting an engineer with screw driver repeatedly while on duty and fracturing his nose.
The MPSEB had sacked Sharma after an inquiry officer had found him guilty of “physical assault” on his boss, Sub-Engineer,
A.K. Singh on Janaury 19, 1984.
The Labour Court though fully agreed with the inquiry report and even confirmed the injury suffered by Singh due to the assault. It however, held that the punishment of termination awarded to Sharma by the MPSEB was of “punitive nature”, and therefore, required to be set aside. The order of the Labour Court was, however, reversed by the Industrial Court in an appeal by upholding the dismissal.
But the Madhya Pradesh High Court again restored the Labour Court order and ordered reinstatement of Sharma without giving him the benefit of back wages. This was challenged by the MPSEB in the Supreme Court on the grounds that under Section 11A of the IDA, interference by the Labour Court in such circumstances was not justified.
Disapproving the findings of the high court and the Labour Court and upholding the dismissal of Sharma, the apex court said “discipline is a form of civil responsible behaviour which helps maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of society at large.”
“Obedience to authority at the work place is not slavery. It is not violative of one’s natural rights. It is essential for prosperity of the organisation as well as that of its employees. When in such a situation, a punishment is awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work of the employees, with no extenuating circumstances established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate,” the court held.
The Labour Court and the high court in the case had “totally misdirected” themselves while exercising their jurisdiction, but the Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion, it said.
