Bombay High Court — In a set of two writ petitions , before Sandeep V Marne, J., against the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which ordered the reinstatement of a Hindustan Petroleum workman who was terminated after he slapped his supervisor. The Court set aside the impugned order and and allowed the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited’s (HPCL) petition. The Court considered the order of the CGIT as to considering the ‘act of slapping the supervisor as not too serious to inflict the punishment of termination of employee’, as ‘shocking’.
Background:
In the matter at hand, the workman was working at HPCL in the post of bulk operator was deployed on duty in the second shift in which his duty was to look after the filling/loading of tank trucks, lorries as well as check density and temperature of the products and record the same. As per HPCL, the prescribed procedure mandated the workman to check the temperature at an interval of every two hours and this process was of immense importance for ascertaining the quantity of the shrinkage or expansion in the product.
It was alleged that when the driver of the truck approached the shift supervisor for his signature on the invoice, he sent it back with instructions to the workman to change the temperature figure to 27 degrees Celsius, however. the workman refused to do so and threatened the supervisor with dire consequences.The supervisor corrected the temperature. When the truck driver went back to the workman with the invoice, he snatched the same, went to the supervisor and slapped him on his right cheek without any provocation.
The workman was suspended by order dated 24-07-1996. Along with being accused of slapping his supervisor, thechargesheet alleged insubordination, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour, use of abusive language, threatening, intimidating, etc. At the end of the domestic enquiry, the officer held that all charges were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of discharge from service by paying one month’s wages in lieu of notice period. An appeal was preferred by the workman before the Appellate Authority, which was turned down. The workman demanded reinstatement with back wages, however,the proceedings of conciliation failed and an order of reference, which questioned the legality of the actions of the management of HPCL, was made dated 13-11-2002.
The reference was marked to CGIT. The CGIT held that the enquiry was not fair and that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse.
Thereafter, the CGIT in anotheraward held that the workman was guilty of the charges but the punishment of termination was “shockingly disproportionate” and set aside the termination while substituting it by permanent withholding of one increment and directed to reinstate the workman with 20 percent back wages.
Shortly before his retirement, the workman filed the second writ petition in this matter challenging the part II of the order of CGIT to find where he was guilty and prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages.
Judgment:
Upon perusal, the Court held that the misconduct on the part of the workman was proved by the direct evidence provided by the three prosecution witnesses. The Court stated that “in a domestic enquiry, the test of proof of charge is preponderance of probability” and a charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is only in cases where the finding of the guilt is not based on any evidence or where there is total absence of evidence, the Court or Tribunal can interfere in the finding of guilt. The Court further stated that no perversity was found in the findings recorded by the CGIT regarding the guilt of the workman. While rejecting the objection of non-framing of separate charges by CGIT, raised on behalf of the workman before permitting HPCL to lead oral evidence before the Tribunal, the Court stated that there is no procedural requirement which requires fresh set of charges to be levelled before adducing evidence before the Labour Court/Industrial Court.
Regarding the time gap of 14 years before leading oral evidence, the Court said that “mere delay in decision of proceedings before CGIT cannot dilute the evidence produced before it by HPCL.”
Further, the Court held that the view taken by CGIT, that ‘the act of assault was not serious’ was startling and astounding and that it was the gravest form of misconduct which the workman could have committed. The Court also expressed shock by the findings recorded by the Presiding Officer of CGIT and stated that the contention of CGIT that a penalty of discharge can only be imposed when bodily injury is suffered by the person who is assaulted is totally unsustainable. The Court said that retaining such an employee would encourage other employees to behave in a similar manner and such misconduct ought to be visited with penalty of discharge. Hence, the Court set aside the findings of CGIT and dismissed the writ petition filed by the workman while allowing the one filed by HPCL and made the Rule absolute in the employer’s writ petition while discharging the Rule in the workman’s writ petition.
[Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1044, Decided on 12-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Senior Advocate Sudhir Talsania, Advocate Vishal Talsania, and Advocate V.M. Parkar
For Respondent — Advocate Jaiprakash Sawant
