JOSEPH SOLOMON Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Petitioner was working as Instrument Mechanic Engineering Department in the Star Paper Mills Limited to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and nothing was recorded against the petitioner. On. 20.9.1981, petitioner was not allowed to enter into the factory premises by the officials of respondent No. 2 on account of timing fixed by the management for entry of workers in the premises. It seems that the petitioner was not allowed to go inside as a result of which petitioner got provoked and passed remarks that the officers are working like dog and in case he does not allow him to enter the premises he will have to face the dire consequences. This was construed to be a misconduct by the management as a result of which enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Result of the enquiry was that the petitioner's service was terminated on the ground that it was an act of gross misconduct which entails extreme punishment of dismissal. Reference was sought by the petitioner under section 4K of the U.P. I.D. Act and the Labour Court after entering into reference examined the claim and counter claim and the witnesses produced by the parties. Findings recorded by the labour Court on the basis of the evidence as well as the material placed before it was that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct and deserves to be punished by ordering his dismissal from service and thereby Labour Court has up-held the order of the petitioner's termination. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) While scanning through the record of the Labour Court as well as the order I do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order. In so far as it relates to the legality of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, record reveals that the Labour Court after going through the evidences and the material available before it concluded that the petitioner had abused the officials which tantamounts to gross misconduct and thereby approved his dismissal from the service.

(3.) Question that call for consideration is as to whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was strictly in consonance with the principle of proportionality. Principle of proportionality contemplates that while exercising its power to regulate the fundamental rights restriction imposed must be minimum to the extent that the object of the legislation or the order is achieved. If the restriction imposed has consequence of destroying the right itself or has adverse effects, action has to be judged on the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality was explained to mean that while regulating exercise of Fundamental Rights the appropriate or the least-restrictive choice of measures has to be made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of legislation or the purpose of administrative order as the case may be. Principle of proportionality can be invoked in case where the fundamental rights are adversely effected by the intended legislation or the Govt. Order which does not conform to the objects of the intended legislation or Govt. Order. Underlying principle is that the punishment awarded must be proportionate to the nature of allegations levelled. Misconduct has many facets. In the normal legal corner, it is an act done by a person in violation of the law or refusal to do something which ought to have been done. It assumes the colour of grave misconduct only if it is intended with ill motive.