Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lekhraj Yadav vs D And H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. on 19 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WA-1046-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 19th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 834 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
BINDESHEWARI PRASAD
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the appellant.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 835 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
LEKHRAJ
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 836 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
MUKESH
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 837 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
2 WA-1046-2024
Versus
DINESH
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 838 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
SANTOSH
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 839 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
RAMESH
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant
WRIT APPEAL No. 840 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
SHIVNARAYAN
Appearance:
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1036 of 2024
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Versus
HARENDRA SINGH
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
3 WA-1046-2024
Shri Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Oshin
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1043 of 2024
SHIVNARAYAN MALVIYA
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1044 of 2024
RAMESH YADAV
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1045 of 2024
BINDESHWARI PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
D AND SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1046 of 2024
LEKHRAJ YADAV
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1047 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
4 WA-1046-2024
SANTOSH KUSHWAH
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1102 of 2024
HARENDRA SINGH TOMER
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1103 of 2024
DINESH CHOUDHARY
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1173 of 2024
MUKESH KAUSHAL
Versus
D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Mohan Karpe and Shri Shrey Chandak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Reserved on : 31.07.2025
Pronounced on : 19.08.2025
.......................................................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
5 WA-1046-2024
ORDER
Per: Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi
Introduction
These appeals have been filed by the employer as well as workmen
both against the common order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Single Bench
of this Court in bunch of Misc.Petitions. Looking to the similitude of the
cases, all the appeals are being decided by this common order, for the sake of
convenience the facts are taken from W.A. No. 834/2024.
1.2 Initially objection regarding maintainability of the appeals was
taken by the registry of this Court, which was overruled by the Court vide
order dated 30.04.2024 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in
the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, reported in 2017
(4) MPLJ 109.
1.3 The point of challenge on behalf of the employer is that even after
the charges of misconduct of the workmen found proved the learned Single
Judge has directed for payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the workmen in
lieu of their reinstatement when the Court itself recorded that reinstatement
in view of the charges found proved is not justified.
1.4 On the other hand the workmen have come against part of the
order, whereby the direction of Labour Court for reinstatement of workmen
has been set aside.
Facts of the Case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
6 WA-1046-2024
2. The short facts of the case are that appellant is a company
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the
business of manufacture and sale of different grades of electrodes. Its
manufacturing unit is situated at 44-46, Industrial Area, Kila Maidan, Indore
(M.P.).
2.1 The D & H Workers’ Association (registered Trade Union)
submitted a demand letter on 21.10.2014 thereby raising a demand for
revision of the wages of the workmen/employees of the Company. The
present respondents in the set of appeals of the employer are the original
petitioners, who were Office Bearers of the Trade Union at the relevant time.
When the demands were not met, the Trade Union started agitation in the
factory premises on the ground that there is delay in consideration of
demands.
2.2 In continuation of the above dispute three workmen
representatives (Santosh Kushwaha, Harendra Singh Tomar and Mukesh
Raghunandan) entered into the cabin of Managing Director Mr. M.D.Khatri
around 11.30 am on 18.07.2015 and started inquiring about wage revision,
when the said Managing Director informed them that due to financial status
of the Company there can be no increase in the wages for now, they started
abusing and misbehaving with him and went out of the cabin. After 10
minutes, they returned with four more persons (Ram Chaudhary, Ramesh
Yadav, Shivnarayan and Bindeshwari Mishra) and started pressurising him
for executing agreement of wage revision that day itself, otherwise they will
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
7 WA-1046-2024
not allow factory to run and also threatened for dire consequences, they
vandalized the Cabin and the Managing Director was manhandled, at that
time two more persons also came (Lekhraj and Dinesh Chaudhary).
Thereafter they went to the cabin of the staff of the MD and vandalised the
same, the Glass of the Cabin was crushed by them, then they caught hold of
Piyush Panthari, Executive Assistant to the Vice Chairman and Prakash
Ramani, Manager Accounts, both of them were working in the cabin of
Prakash Ramani. The aforementioned workmen forcefully brought them
downstairs and not only abused them, but also beaten them and threatened
with dire consequences, if their demands were not fulfilled. The above said
two persons sustained injuries because of the beating by those workmen. An
FIR was registered on the same date around 2.22 pm at police station
Malharganj.
2.3 The employer issued charge sheet to the respondents/workmen on
20.07.2015 for the incident happened on 18.07.2015. The enquiry
proceedings were conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on
4.02.2016, thereby recording findings against the workmen to the effect that
charges against them were found proved. Pursuant to the enquiry report
order of termination was passed against the respondents-workmen on
03.05.2016.
2.4 The respondents-workmen being aggrieved by their termination
filed reference before the appropriate Government on 01.09.2016. The
statement of claim was filed by the respondents-workmen on 09.05.2016
before the learned Labour Court after the reference was made by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
8 WA-1046-2024
appropriate Government and in response the employer filed its statement of
defence.
Order and Award by the Labour Court
3. The learned Labour Court tried legality and propriety of the
departmental enquiry as preliminary issue. After considering the material
available on record, the Tribunal concluded that as the original record of the
inquiry proceedings as well as the enquiry report has not been produced and
exhibited thus it is not proved that the inquiry was conducted by following
the principles of natural justice, as such the the departmental enquiry was
declared illegal vide order dated 16.02.2022 thereby finding that the enquiry
was vitiated. Thus, the learned Labour Court proceeded to examine the
charges itself. Learned Labour Court recorded the statement of Piyush
Panthari on 04.07.2022 and Prakash Ramani on 23.08.2022. Thereafter, on
28.6.2022 statement of respondents-workmen were recorded. The learned
Labour Court after considering the entire material passed award dated
28.04.2023. The learned Labour Court recorded in paragraph 18 and 22 that
charges of violence and consequential injuries were found proved.
3.1 Even after recording these findings against the respondents-workmen
the learned Labour Court by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of M.P.Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 401 and Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh , reported in
(2015)8 SCC 272, has observed that in case of misconduct of assault with the
senior Officer the order of termination of services was disproportionate and in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
9 WA-1046-2024
said case the Hon’ble Apex Court reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages.
Consequently, the respondents-workmen were directed to be reinstated in service,
but without back wages.
Order by Hon’ble Single Bench
4 The employer-appellant company being aggrieved by order of the
learned Labour Court filed Misc.Petitions before this Court. The respondents
were also aggrieved for not grant of back wages, thus they also filed writ
petitions against the same award.
4.1 The learned Single Bench after considering the rival submissions
decided all the writ petitions by dividing them into set ‘A’ by the employer
and set ‘B’ by the workmen by common order dated 14.03.2024. The Single
Bench after considering the rival submissions recorded its appreciation and
conclusion in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the order. The Hon’ble Single Bench
in para 11 of the award has recorded findings that the workmen are not
disputing the report made to the Police, which is exhibited as Ex.D/10. The
complaint by the Executives of the Management are exhibited as Ex.D/9 and
D/11 and that after appreciating documentary as well as oral evidence
learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that these workmen assaulted
and misbehaved with the management and these findings are not liable to be
interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble
Single Judge further recorded in para 14 of the award that “in such situations
where the charges of assault and causing injury have been found proven, the
direction for reinstatement is not being justified. These workmen cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
10 WA-1046-2024
permitted to work with other workers, therefore, award of reinstatement with
50% back wages would not be appropriate relief for the workmen”.
4.2 After observing thus, learned Single Judge recorded that apart
from this unwanted incident, there is no other adverse material against these
workmen and in the spur of moment they might have lost control of
themselves as there was a lot of agitation going on due to non-fulfillment of
the demand for wage revision. It is also recorded that they did so for the
benefit of coworkers and not for their personal gain. Pursuant to these
observations the learned Single Judge directed that in lieu of reinstatement
an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- apart from payment of any terminal benefits be
made to the respondents. Thus, the award dated 28.04.2023 was modified to
that extent.
Submissions by the Counsel for Employer
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants by referring to para 21 of
the award passed by the learned Labour Court submits that the observations
made by the Labour Court in the said para of the award are perverse. He
submits that in fact in the case of Nicholas Piramal there was no allegation of
assault, in that case the allegation was of ‘go slow’, no allegation of assault
on the members of management was involved. As such, reliance by the
learned Labour Court on the said case for holding the penalty of termination
as disproportionate is not correct and the same cannot be a basis for
reinstatement because in the present case it was a clear finding by the learned
Labour Court that the respondents-workmen were found involved in assault
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
11 WA-1046-2024
on two members of the management.
5.2 He further submits that once the Single Judge recorded
satisfaction that the findings of the Labour Court regarding assault are correct
and did not interfere in the same, then the only consequential outcome of the
same was upholding of termination of the workmen. In support of his
submissions he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
M/s Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. Vs. A.Unnikrishnan and others, (2006)
13 SCC 619, Bharat Forge Co.Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manoher Nakote, ( 2005)2
SCC 489, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade, (2005)3 SCC
134 and M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005)3 SCC
401 . He submits that cases for such grave misconduct cannot be allowed to
be dealt with in such casual manner. He submits that if such kind of
misconduct is countenanced then it will set a bad example and the
management will not be able to handle the workmen and the affairs of the
factory properly. It will become impossible for the management to get the
work done from its workmen. He submits that it has to be remembered that
discipline is a form of civility and responsible behaviour which helps
maintain social order and resultantly productivity of the factory. He stresses
on the fact that act of the respondents-workmen was not for coworkers, but it
was their personal gain as they were office bearers and they wanted certain
demands to be fulfilled at their whims and caprice for their gain.
5.3 The learned Senior Counsel for the employer on the basis of
above submissions states that in view of the findings recorded by the learned
Labour Court in its award and as approved by the Hon’ble Single Bench, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
12 WA-1046-2024
findings of the departmental inquiry also stands affirmed as the misconduct
of the workmen was found proved by the Labour Court as well as by the
Single Judge of this Court. As such, he prays for setting aside of the order
dated 16.02.2022 (vitiating D.E) and award to the extent reinstating the
workmen as well as the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench directing for
payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- and further prays for upholding the order of
termination of workmen dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P/3).
Submission by the Counsel for Workmen
6. On the other hand counsel for the workmen in the second set of
petitions stated that entire career of the respondents-workmen is clean. Apart
from this incident, there is no allegation of any misconduct against them. It
has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ Court
has wrongly placed reliance on the FIR lodged against workmen-
respondents, wherein they have falsely implicated under Section 323, 294,
506, 427/34 of IPC at the instance Murlidhar Khatri, who was Managing
Director of the company alleging assault over Piyush Panthari and Prakash
Ramani. He points out that Prakash Ramani has turned hostile and has denied
about any such incident in his deposition.
6.1 He also submits that other person i.e. Piyush Panthari has not
deposed before the trial Court till date despite the bailable warrants being
issued against him and the criminal trial is pending at prosecution stage from
2015. He, thus submits that finding that the employees/workmen assaulted
the Managing Director and the members of management is a disputed fact.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
13 WA-1046-2024
He submits that respondents have been falsely implicated in the criminal
case. The appellants were seeking bonus and revision of wages for the
coworkers being the union representatives.
6.2 He also submits that the effect of acquittal has to be seen in
criminal case, which at present is pending consideration before the concerned
Court at the stage of prosecution witnesses. As such, he supports the findings
of the award and further requests for grant of back wages pursuant to the
reinstatement. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs.
State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 .
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the record.
Relevant Provision of Law and findings of the Labour Court
8 . Before adverting further to the facts of the case it would be
profitable that the relevant provisions of law are considered. The provisions
of order no. 12 (1) (d) and (f), (3) (b) of the M.P. Standard Standing Orders
provide as under:
12. Disciplinary action for misconduct- (1) The
following acts or omissions on the part of an employee
shall amount to a major misconduct:
(a)…
(b)…
(c)…
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
14 WA-1046-2024
(d) wilful disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of
a superior involving safety of any person or property or
other matter having an adverse effect upon the work or
wages of other employees;
(e)…
(f) drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour , during
working hours at the undertaking or conduct endangering
the life or safety of any person, intimidation, physical
duress, or any act subversive of discipline ;
…
(3) (b) The punishment for a major misconduct may be-
(i) censure, or
(ii) fine, or
(iii) suspension for a period not exceeding four
days on any one occasion, or
(iv) withholding of increments for a period of
one year, or
(v) demotion, or
(vi) dismissal.
8.1. The charge sheet was issued to the workmen under order 12 (1)
(d) & (f). The alleged act of the workmen is covered under the said
provisions and the penalty of dismissal is also provided under the said
provisions for such misconduct. As such, given the charges are found proved
it would be legal for the employer to punish the delinquent with a penalty of
dismissal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
15 WA-1046-2024
8.2 Now, in the facts of the present case, while considering the rival
submissions it has to be kept in mind that present is the case where learned
Labour Court after passing order dated 16.02.2022 vitiating departmental
enquiry for want of production of record of D.E. and inquiry report, had
itself conducted inquiry and after recording evidence had found all the
charges proved against the workmen, in the final award dated 28.04.2023
specific findings have been recorded in para 18 and 22 by the learned Labour
Court, which are as under:-
”18- उ याय ांत के आलोक म करण म तुत द तावेज को सा य म पढ़ा
जा सकता है । पुिलस रपोट .ड . 10 से दिशत है क मैने जंग डायरे टर मुरलीधर
ख ी ारा घटना दनांक 18/07/2015 को लगभग 11 से 11:15 बजे के म य हुई
घटना के संबंध म उ दनांक को ह समय 14:22 बजे पुिलस थाना म हारगंज म
ाथ के व थम सूचना लेख करा द गई थी। पुिलस ारा उ दनांक को ह
घटना थल का न शा मौका पंचनामा व नुकसानी पंचनामा बनाया गया था तथा
पयूष पॉथर एवं काश रामानी का मेड कल कराया गया था। उसम उ दोन
आहतगण को चोट आना बताया गया है । उ द तावेज से प है क बंधन ारा
ाथ के व घटना दनांक को ह पुिलस म िशकायत क गई है एवं पुिलस ारा
उ दनांक को ह आहतगण का मेड कल कराया गया है जसम आहतगण को चोट
आना मा णत हुआ है । अतः यह प है क ाथ ने घटना दनांक को ित ाथ
बंधन के साथ मारपीट क है ।
……………..
……………..
……………..
22- ह तगत करण म ाथ ारा वष 2014 से ित ाथ बंधन से वेतन वृ क
मांग क जा रह थी। इसी संबंध म दनांक 18.07.2015 को ाथ अपने अ य
सािथय के साथ मैने जंग डायरे टर के पास चचा करने गया था। पर तु मैने जंग
डायरे टर ारा समझौते को दो साल के िलए बढ़ाने के िलए कहा गया था। इसके
बाद ह ाथ एवं उसके सािथय ारा बंधन के काश रामानी एवं पयूष पॉथर के
साथ हाथापाई कर द गई थी। ाथ एवं उसके साथी मारपीट करने के उ े य से
मैने जंग डायरे टर के पास नह ं गये थे। उ हाथापाई आक मक घटना का
प रणाम थी जसम दोन आहतगण को मामूली चोट आई थी। ऐसी थित म ाथ
क सेवा समाि का आदे श अिधक द डा मक होकर अनुपातह न है ।”Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
16 WA-1046-2024
8.3. The findings of the Labour Court have been affirmed by the
learned Single Judge, thus there can be no dispute about the fact that
workmen-respondents assaulted the members of the management and for
which their services were terminated by the employer. Now, the question is
once the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge found that workmen
have committed misconduct of assault on the members of management of the
factory, then in such a case the award of reinstatement can be justified.
The Case Law regarding Major Misconduct
9. Considering the aspect of sympathy with the workmen the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed in the case of M/s Kerala Solvent (supra) in para 9
and 10 as under :-
“9. We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In
recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this,
perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable tendency
towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial
reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts
must be seen to be logical and tenable within the
framework of the law and should not incur and justify
the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to
degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and
private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the
integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the
conclusions. They must emanate logically from the
legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be
principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive
judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at
the expense of the legitimacy of the process will
eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and
denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority,
predictability and respectability.
10. In this case, we have no hesitation to held that both
the Labour Court and the High Court have erred. We
allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the LabourSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
17 WA-1046-2024
Court and of the High Court in the writ petition, and
dismiss the dispute raised by the respondent before the
Labour Court.”
9.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahindra (supra) held in
para 20 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 certainly 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. In the absence of any
such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy
alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and
reduce the punishment. As noticed hereinabove at least in two of
the cases cited before us i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. [(1960) 1 LLJ
518 (SC)] and New Shorrock Mills [(1996) 6 SCC 590 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 1484] this Court held: “Punishment of dismissal for
using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate.”
In this case all the forums below have held that the language used
by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the
language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated
by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a
superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his
subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for
lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred
to hereinabove.
(Emphasis
supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
18 WA-1046-2024
9.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board
(supra) held as under:
8. The question then is, whether the interference with
the punishment by the Labour Court was justified? In
other words, the question is whether the punishment
imposed was so harsh or so disproportionate to the
charge proved, that it warranted or justified interference
by the Labour Court? Here, it had been clearly found
that the employee during work, had hit his superior
officer with a tension screw on his back and on his nose
leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose. It has also
been found that this incident was followed by the
unauthorised absence of the employee. It is in the
context of these charges found established that the
punishment of termination was imposed on the
employee. The jurisdiction under Section 107-A of the
Act to interfere with punishment when it is a discharge
or dismissal can be exercised by the Labour Court only
when it is satisfied that the discharge or dismissal is not
justified. Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to
interfere with the punishment in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only
when it finds that the punishment imposed, is
shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. These
aspects are well settled. In U.P. SRTC v. Subhash
Chandra Sharma [(2000) 3 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (L&S)
349] this Court, after referring to the scope of
interference with punishment under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, held that the Labour Court was
not justified in interfering with the order of removal
from service when the charge against the employee
stood proved. It was also held that the jurisdiction
vested with the Labour Court to interfere with
punishment was not to be exercised capriciously and
arbitrarily. It was necessary, in a case where the Labour
Court finds the charge proved, for a conclusion to be
arrived at that the punishment was shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of the charge found
proved, before it could interfere to reduce the
punishment. In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil
Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 1067 : (2004) 7 Scale 608] this Court
after referring to the decision in State of
Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 1455] also pointed out the difference
between the approaches to be made in a criminal
proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding. This Court
also pointed out that when charges proved were grave,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
19 WA-1046-2024
vis-à-vis the establishment, interference with
punishment of dismissal could not be justified.
In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar
Nakate [(2005) 2 SCC 489 : (2005) 1 Scale 345] this
Court again reiterated that the jurisdiction to interfere
with the punishment should be exercised only when the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate and that each
case had to be decided on its facts. This Court also
indicated that the Labour Court or the Industrial
Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions
of the Act, had to act within the four corners thereof. It
could not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer
unless there existed a statutory provision in that behalf.
The Tribunal or the Labour Court could not interfere
with the quantum of punishment based on irrational or
extraneous factors and certainly not on what it considers
a compassionate ground. It is not necessary to multiply
authorities on this question, since the matter has been
dealt with in detail in a recent decision of this Court
in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.
Narawade [(2005) 3 SCC 134 : (2005) 2 Scale 302] .
This Court summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 141,
para 20)
“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 certainly 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
20 WA-1046-2024
It may also be noticed that in Orissa Cement
Ltd. v. Adikanda Sahu [(1960) 1 LLJ 518
(SC)] and in New Shorrock
Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao [(1996) 6 SCC
590 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1484] this Court held
that use of abusive language against a
superior, justified punishment of dismissal.
This Court stated “punishment of dismissal
for using abusive language cannot be held to
be disproportionate”. If that be the position
regarding verbal assault, we think that the
position regarding dismissal for physical
assault, must be found all the more
justifiable. Recently, in Muriadih Colliery
BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union [(2005) 3 SCC 331 : JT (2005) 2 SC
444] this Court after referring to and quoting
the relevant passages from Krishnakali Tea
Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor
Sangh [(2004) 8 SCC 200 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
1067 : (2004) 7 Scale 608] and Tournamulla
Estate v. Workmen [(1973) 2 SCC 502 : 1973
SCC (L&S) 510] held: (SCC p. 336, para 17)
“The courts below by condoning an act of
physical violence have undermined the
discipline in the organisation, hence, in the
above factual backdrop, it can never be said
that the Industrial Tribunal could have
exercised its authority under Section 11-A of
the Act to interfere with the punishment of
dismissal.”
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 organisation. Discipline at the
workplace in an organisation like the employer herein,
is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the
organisation. When an employee breaches such
discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is
not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to
take the view that the punishment awarded is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
21 WA-1046-2024
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 behaviour 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 organisation 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 organisation 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.
9.3 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central India
Flour Mills v. Mohd. Ishaq Sagir , 1987 SCC OnLine MP 125 : 1988 MP LJ
274 held in para 8 as under:
8. Industrial discipline is as vital and important in a factory as
production is because both are interlinked. Indiscipline in an
industry and that too by a section incharge is likely to give way to
labour indiscipline and may retard the growth and production of
an industry which is national loss. Discipline in a factory can be
maintained only when the acts of indiscipline are viewed gravely
and appropriate and proportionate punishment is meted out to the
delinquent. Soft glove treatment to the delinquents, either in a
factory or in an educational institution, is likely to result in chaos,
ultimately harming and damaging beyond repair the national
discipline. That will result in tearing away the soft fibres of
character. We have no hesitation in concluding that the
punishment awarded to respondent 1 by the domestic enquiry was
in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Reinstatement with
half back-wages is not the punishment which can be awarded
under rule 12(3)(b) if the delinquent is found guilty. Respondents
2 and 3 have gone beyond the provisions of the rules, when
though like domestic enquiry they found respondent 1 guilty of
major misconduct yet awarded the punishment which is not
provided in rule 12(3)(b). Respondent 3 has gone a step further
than respondent 2 and erroneously held that the act of indiscipline
was not a public misconduct. Filthy abuses of mother and sisterSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
22 WA-1046-2024
burled by an employee upon the manager of the factory, during
working hours, in presence of other employees can never be
termed as private misconduct. In rule 12 no such term finds place
as “private misconduct” or “public misconduct.” According to
rules a misconduct can be major or minor but not private or public.
A serious view should have been taken by respondents 2 and 3 in
their judgments once they arrived at the conclusion that respondent
1 was guilty of major misconduct. There was no ground available
to them to alter the punishment awarded by the enquiry officer,
when rule 12 does not provide for a punishment, which they chose
to impose, after altering the sentence imposed by the inquiry
officer. Respondents 2 and 3 cannot substitute the provisions of
rules with their own views. Once the rules are framed they have to
be followed in word and spirit. The specific provisions of rules
can neither be substituted nor subverted.
9.4 Again, in the case of Bharat Forge (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court
considered the aspect of misplaced sympathy with the employer.
Consideration of facts and law
10. In view of the specific findings recorded by the learned Labour
Court the charges of abuse and violence were found proved against the
workmen. According to the provisions of Standard Standing Order No.12 the
same is a major misconduct for which punishment of dismissal can be
imposed. In the present case, the conduct of the respondents-workmen is not
such that it could be condoned or termed as a minor indiscretion so as to be
termed as any incident at the spur of moment. The workmen in question first
came in the cabin of the MD then returned after 10 minutes with some more
persons and then manhandled and abused him then went on the cabin of
other management staff and abused and beaten them. Assault on the members
of management is a very serious misconduct, which has its cascading effect
over the entire discipline and working of the workmen of the factory.
Productivity is directly connected with discipline. It is, thus be kept in mind
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
23 WA-1046-2024
that to keep a factory in social order all the parties are required to remain in
discipline. Once, both the Courts have found that the respondents-workmen
assaulted the above said two persons and they sustained injuries, which were
medically found proved, sympathy shown by the Court is absolutely
misplaced in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In such
cases, there is no scope of showing sympathy.
10.1 Even the reliance placed by the learned Labour Court on the case
of Nicholas Piramal (Supra) is not only misplaced but also erroneous, the
Labour Court while referring the said judgment has observed in para 21 of
the award that in the case of violence the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the
penalty of dismissal as disproportionate and directed for reinstatement with
50% back wages. In fact, in the said case the charge was of “go slow” and
not of physical assault, as such, the learned Labour Court has wrongly relied
on the said case.
10.2 As regards judgment in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others (supra) relied by counsel for the respondents, it was a
case where on same set of facts the accused was acquitted by the criminal
Court, but in the present case the trial is still in progress before the concerned
Court. Thus, there cannot be any benefit of the said case to the respondents in
the present case. If the respondents wanted to rely on the ratio of the said
case, then they should have requested for awaiting outcome of the criminal
trial by moving appropriate application in the proceedings and by stating that
the enquiry before the trial Court and the criminal Court is based on same set
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
24 WA-1046-2024
of facts but nothing of this sort was done by them.
10.3 There is one more distinguishable factor in the present case that
in the present case, the learned Labour Court conducted inquiry and after
recording evidence has recorded findings that the charges against the
workmen are found proved thus, the case of Ram Lal (supra) does not
benefits the respondents in any manner.
Conclusion
11. In view of the analysis as made hereinabove this Court is of the
considered view that the learned Labour Court as well as learned Single
Judge have committed grave error of law in reinstating the respondents-
workmen and granting a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
respectively. In view of the fact that the charges against the workmen were
found proved and keeping in view the nature of charges, the punishment of
dismissal was not at all disproportionate and it does not shock the conscience
of this court. Thus, the present writ appeal is allowed. The order dated
28.04.2023 (Annexure P/12) as well as the impugned order dated 14.03.2024
are hereby set aside. As a sequel to this the order dated 16.02.2022 setting
aside the order of termination is also quashed. The termination of the
respondents-workmen vide order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P/3) is upheld.
12. Accordingly, all the writ appeals filed by the employer are allowed
and all the writ appeals filed by the workmen are dismissed.
Registry is directed to retain copy of this order in the records of all the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM
25 WA-1046-2024
connected appeals.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
patil
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 8/20/2025
5:48:44 PM