The Karnataka High Court has held that the act of a workman using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly and the imposition of punishment by way of dismissal in such a case cannot be held to be disproportionate.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the observation while allowing the petition filed by the Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. It set aside the order passed by Labour court directing the company to reinstate the workman Jaypal KM.
The company argued that Labour Court failed to consider the evidence tendered by witnesses, against one of whom the respondent used unparliamentary and derogatory language. Another witness said the workman used abusive language and threatened the Enquiry Officer of dire consequences. The company said this oral evidence remained un-rebutted. It argued that discipline at the workplace cannot be compromised.
Also read: Ruchika Nanda joins Sberbank as Head of HR/HR Director
The bench on going through the evidence of the witnesses and the records said “The acts of subversive discipline are as such acts that tend to subvert discipline of tendency over through, upset and destroy discipline in any establishment. Broadly speaking, all acts which tend to destroy discipline would tantamount to “acts subversive of discipline” and which may include misconduct relating to duty, negligence going on illegal strikes, go slow, in-subordination and disobedience of orders, riots and disorderly behaviour.”
It relied on Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. MV Nervary, (2005) where the Apex court came down heavily on such types of acts of employee and held that removal/dismissal in such cases are justified.
“In the circumstances narrated above and the decisions stated supra, in the instant case the act of the workman by using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly, as held by the Labour Court, the imposition of punishment of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority to the gravity of misconduct by the workman was justified,” Court said and upheld the dismissal of the workman.
Appearance: Advocate Shashi B.P for Petitioner.
Advocate Prashanth B K for Respondent.
Citation No; 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Case Title: Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2022 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.52533 OF 2019
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Souce: Livelaw
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
