Dismissal For Threatening Manager Not Disproportionate When Employee Has Record Of Similar Misconduct: Madras HC

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that dismissal for abusive and threatening conduct against a superior is not disproportionate when the employee has a history of similar past misconduct. Background Facts The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation employed a Conductor. He was working in the Rameshwaram Branch of the second respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi. He was also the Secretary of a Trade Union affiliated with the Labour Progressive Union. On April 11, 1992, he trespassed into the Branch Manager's cabin and threatened him. Further attempted to assault him. Therefore, the Management initiated disciplinary proceedings upon a complaint. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted a report on October 15, 1992, holding that the charges were proved against conductor. A second show-cause notice was issued to him on February 17, 1993. The notice also detailed his past disciplinary record. It included four previous instances of misconduct, such as misappropriation of funds, using abusive language and threatening the Branch Manager. The conductor did not respond to the second show-cause notice. Therefore, the Management passed an order, dismissing him from service. Aggrieved, conductor filed an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an Award on January 28, 2002, upholding the dismissal. Aggrieved by Labour Court Award, he filed a petition. A Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on June 30, 2016. However, the conductor passed away on February 13, 2018. Therefore, his widow filed the Appeal seeking to set aside the order of the Single Judge. It was contended by the appellant that the conductor was an active trade union leader serving as the Secretary of a union affiliated with the Labour Progressive Union. Further he was victimized by the Management due to his union activities. It was further submitted that the charges against the petitioner like abusing and attempting to assault the Branch Manager did not warrant the extreme and harsh punishment of dismissal from service. It was argued that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged. The reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s.Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., wherein it was held that dismissal for a charge of using abusive language was disproportionate, when the employee had a long and unblemished service record. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had a history of indiscipline, with prior instances of similar misconduct involving abusive language and threats against the Branch Manager. It was argued by the respondents that due to the conductor's past conduct and the serious nature of the charge, the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Court that in judgments of the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra and Ved Prakash Gupta, dismissal for using abusive language was held to be disproportionate. However, in the conductor's case, there was a significant factual difference. It was observed that in the Supreme Court judgments, the charged misconduct was a solitary, stray incident and that the employees had long, unblemished service records. It was observed by the Court that the conductor had been charged with similar offences of misconduct against the Branch Manager on two earlier separate occasions, for which he was punished with a cut in increment for one year without cumulative effect on both occasions. Additionally, there were two other earlier instances wherein the petitioner was charged with remitting shortage of the amount collected while performing his duties as a Conductor in the Transport Corporation bus. On the first occasion, he was severely warned, and on the second occasion, he was punished with a cut in increment for one year without cumulative effect. It was observed that previous misconduct of similar nature on two occasions necessarily had to be taken into account while determining the appropriate punishment for the repeated offences involving abusive and threatening conduct against the Branch Manager. It was held by the court that the Labour Court duly considered the issue of proportionality of the punishment and held that the punishment was not disproportionate under the circumstances. It was further observed that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate taking into consideration the past disciplinary record of the conductor. It was held that the conductor had a tendency for threatening and abusing the Branch Manager, which reflects direct insubordination and extreme disrespect towards an officer holding a managerial position. Consequently, the findings of the...

Dismissal For Threatening Manager Not Disproportionate When Employee Has Record Of Similar Misconduct: Madras HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Dismissal For Threatening Manager Not Disproportionate When Employee Has Record Of Similar Misconduct: Madras HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers