SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.P. Bharucha and A.P. Misra, JJ.

C.A. No. 5750 of 1998. D/d. 13.11.1998

Mahendra Nissan Allwyans Ltd. - Petitioner

Versus

M.P. Siddappa and another - Respondents

Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 226 - Dismissal - Labour Court confirmed removal from service of first respondent on proved misconduct - First respondent was found to have led workmen from factory premises regardless of challenge by security guard - Alongwith these workmen first respondent entered into room of Deputy General Manager and Manager and abused them in filthy language - Misbehaviour was also proved against first respondent with five executives of company - Charges proved against workman were worthy of his dismissal - High Court wrongly came to conclusion that charges were not serious in nature and punishment imposed was disproportionate - Punishment imposed against respondent must remain unaltered.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

S.P. Bharucha, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was made on a writ petition filed by the first respondent workman against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, which had confirmed the order of removal from service of the first respondent from the employment of the appellant. The High Court said :

"We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court. The punishment imposed against the petitioner workman is not proportionate to the charges levelled against him. Moreover, the charges levelled against the petitioner workman are not serious in nature. Instead of removing the petitioner from service as per the orders of the disciplinary authority, the Labour Court should have modified the order to that of reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages (appointment afresh)."

3. The High Court found no fault with the finding that the charges had been proved. It found that the charges were not serious in nature and the punishment that was imposed was disproportionate.

4. We do not agree with the High Court. The charges are of a serious nature. The first respondent was found to have led out workmen from the factory premises regardless of the challenge by the Security Guard. Along with these workmen the first respondent entered the administrative building of the appellant and the room of the Deputy General Manager. The Deputy General Manger and Manager (Personnel) were abused in filthy language and threatened, examples of which have been given. Misbehaviour was also proved against the first respondent in his conduct with five executives of the appellants. If these are not serious charges against a workman worthy of his dismissal from service, we do not know what can be. The High Court was quite wrong in the conclusion that it reached and in the order that it passed. The punishment imposed against the respondent must remain unaltered.

5. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.