# Ainul Hussain Siddiqui v. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1887
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002642 of 2007
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ainul-hussain-siddiqui-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-u-p-lucknow-anr-51903
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Anupras Singh, J.N. Mathur

Disciplinary
Proceedings-Petitioner
appointed as an operator in the factory of
opposite party-several employees indulged
into
violent process for pressing
their
demands-Petitioner was suspended pending
disciplinary -suspension became redundantafter coming to the factory he actively
participated in illegal and unconstitutional
activities-enquiry-dismissed-
employer
submitted 28 documents before enquiry
officer and Petitioner St.d that he will not
produce any document in defence-declined to
cross -examine witnesses-findings of the
Enquiry Officer are based on cogent materialevidence
led
by
employer
remained
uncontroverted-no illegality.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1887
(2024) 5 ILRA 1887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1002642 of 2007

Ainul Hussain Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer
Labour
Court
U.P.
Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amar Nath Tripathi, Akhter Abbas, Asif
Iqbal, Manoj Kumar Sahu, Syed Husain
Abbas

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anupras Singh, J.N. Mathur

Disciplinary
Proceedings-Petitioner
appointed as an operator in the factory of
opposite party-several employees indulged
into
violent process for pressing
their
demands-Petitioner was suspended pending
disciplinary -suspension became redundantafter coming to the factory he actively
participated in illegal and unconstitutional
activities-enquiry-dismissed-
employer
submitted 28 documents before enquiry
officer and Petitioner St.d that he will not
produce any document in defence-declined to
cross -examine witnesses-findings of the
Enquiry Officer are based on cogent materialevidence
led
by
employer
remained
uncontroverted-no illegality.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anil Kumar Vs Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC
378,

2. Rajeev Saxena Vs Punjab National Bank, 2018
(36) LCD 1218

3. Canara Bank Vs Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court & ors.2004 (102) FLR 1146

4. Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs Delhi Admn.: (1984)
4 SCC 635.

5. Airtech Private Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., 1983 SCC
Online ALL954

6. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra
Sharma , (2005) 3 SCC 401

7. Rajeev Saxena Vs Punjab National Bank, 2018
(36) LCD 1218

8. Canara Bank Vs Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court & ors.2004 (102) FLR 1146

9. Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs Delhi Admn.: (1984)
4 SCC 635

10. Airtech Private Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., 1983 SCC
OnLine All 954

11. Shankar Chakravarti Vs Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd., (1979) 3 SCC 371

12. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra
Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tripathi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.
Seema Dixit, the learned Standing Counsel
and Sri Anupras Singh, the learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of instant petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the
validity of an award dated 30.10.2006
passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour
Court, U.P., Lucknow in Case No. 103 of
2002 as well as an order dated 10.08.2000
passed by opposite party no. 2 dismissing
1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner from the service of Telco,
which is now known as Tata Motors Ltd.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that the petitioner was appointed as an
operator in the factory of opposite party no.
2 situated at Lucknow on 27.04.1995. On
28.03.2000, several employees of the
Company indulged into violent process for
pressing their demands and they indulged
into arson and loot and held the General
Manager of the Company hostage, who
could be freed with the intervention of the
police. The petitioner was suspended by
means of an order dated 30.03.2000,
pending disciplinary enquiry.

4. The Suspension order was put in
abeyance by means of another order dated
07.04.2000, wherein it was stated that as the
lock out of the factory has been declared by
the management, the suspension has become
redundant during continuance of lock out.

5. On 03.04.2000, the charge sheet was
issued to the petitioner, a copy whereof has
been annexed with the petition which inter
alia stated that the petitioner was on duty in
B-shift. After coming to the factory, the
petitioner did not go to his work place and
struck the work. He went to the office of the
General Manager and joined the ongoing
'Dharna' and 'Gherao' of the General
Manager. He actively participated in illegal
and unconstitutional activities and agitated
other workers against the management. He
threatened the General Manager that his
'Gherao' will continue until the demand of
increase in wages was met. Defamatory,
intimidating and abusive slogans were
hurled which have been reproduced in the
charge-sheet and considering the indecent
language whereof, the same cannot be
reproduced in this judgment. The chargesheet states that the door of General
Manager's Lobby was broken open and the
petitioner alongwith some other persons
forcibly entered into the room of the General
Manager and demanded a meeting with him.
During the meeting, the petitioner continued
provoking and instigating the workers,
which whipped up the passion of the
workers and surcharged the already tense
atmosphere. The District Magistrate and
Police officials had to intervene in the matter
and they warned the workmen to lift the
illegal confinement of the General Manager.
The Administration thereafter warned the
workmen to vacate the Chassis Assembly
Block Building immediately otherwise the
police will be forced to take action. Sensing
danger to the life of the General Manager,
the police started a rescue operation at about
09:30 p.m. and when he was being taken out
in police protection, the petitioner alongwith
other workers turned violent and indulged in
arson and looting and they assaulted the
officials of the district administration, police
and of the company with iron rods, broken
flower pots, pieces of broken furniture and
broken glass panes. The Additional District
Magistrate, Trans Gomti, Superintendent of
Police, Trans Gomti, Circle Officer Trans
Gomti, Station House Officer, Chinhat,
some other police personnel and the
company's officials Mr. Vinay Kumar
Pathak, Mr. Sivdasan and Mr. S. Banerjee
were severely injured. Thereafter the
petitioner put the expensive property of the
Company to fire, in which the Chassis
Assembly Block Office building and
Planning
Department
Office
of
the
Company were engulfed. The petitioner
indulged in damaging the company's
vehicles parked near time office by bricks
and missiles. Due to the aforesaid activities,
the company suffered losses of Crores of
Rupees. The charge-sheet stated that the
aforesaid acts amount to serious and grave
misconduct as per the provisions of Clause
5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1889
24(I), 24(2), 24(9), 24(15(a), 24(15)(b),
24(17), 24(18) and 24(39) of the certified
standing orders of the company which were
reproduced
in
the
charge-sheet.
The
petitioner claims to have given a letter dated
07.04.2000 demanding copies of certain
documents. The enquiry commenced on
28.05.2000 on which date the petitioner had
given an application to the Enquiry Officer
stating that the documents had not been
provided to him and, therefore, he could not
file any reply.

6. The Enquiry Officer submitted a
report dated 05.07.2000, wherein it is
recorded that the petitioner had given an
application that he will represent himself.
The employer submitted 28 documents. The
petitioner stated that he will not produce any
document in defence. As per narration made
in the enquiry report, Sri Sanjay Sablok PW1, stated regarding the incident that took
place on 28.03.2000. However the enquiry
report also refers to PW-1 as Sri Amitabh
Nandi. Sri Vinay Pathak was examined as
PW-2 and Vikas Bindal was examined as
PW-3 Lieutenant Colonel S.S. Maan was
examined as PW-4. The petitioner declined
to cross-examine the witnesses produced by
the employer.

7. The Enquiry Officer concluded that
all statements of the witnesses produced by
the
employer
established
that
on
28.03.2000,
the petitioner
had
made
'Gherao' of the General Manager of the
Company alongwith other employees. He
was present where speeches were being
given, obscene and intimidating slogans and
were being raised and the General Manager
was being forced to come out of his room to
accept the demands and when he did not
come out, the door of the General Manager
Lobby was broken open. He was 'Gheraoed'
for several hours. The Enquiry Officer also
referred to the photographs of the incident,
newspaper
cuttings,
FIR,
Charter
of
demands, medico legal examination reports
and report of damages, which establishes the
active involvement of the petitioner in the
incident. The statement of Sanjay Sablok
PW-1 and Senior Engineer Vikas Bindal
proved that at that point of time, the
petitioner was not present in the department
and he was seen in the General Manager
Officer. He was stopped but he did not agree.
PW-2 Vikas Bindal had seen the petitioner
in the crowd that was causing damage to the
General Manager Office.

8. The petitioner did not adduce any
documentary evidence and in his oral
submission, he admitted that no work was
being done in the factory since morning of
28.03.2000. Most of the employees of Bshift had gone towards the General Manager
office and he had also gone there. In his
cross examination, he stated that he had
gone to attend the sit-in and he had not done
it under any fear. He further admitted that all
the employees were present in the office of
the General Manager.

9. The enquiry officer found that the
entire evidence available before him
indicates that the petitioner was involved
with several employees in laying 'Gherao'
of General Manager, raising slogans,
indulging in damaging the company
property and the charges leveled against him
were proved.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid
enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed
from service by means of an order dated
10.08.2000.

11. The validity of the dismissal order
was challenged before the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow by the
1890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
following reference made on 26.06.2000 by
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Lucknow Zone, Lucknow: -

Whether
the
order
dated
10.08.2000
passed
by
the
employer
dismissing the petitioner from service is
proper and legal ? If no, then to what relief
the workman is entitled thereon?.

12. The Labour Court framed the
following preliminary issues: -

(i) Whether the departmental
enquiry had been conducted against the
petitioner in accordance with law or not,
and it's effect

(ii) Whether the case of the
petitioner can continue before the Industrial
Tribunal-2, Lucknow when the cases of
other (similarly situated) workmen were
going on before Industrial Tribunal-2,
Lucknow.

13. While deciding the preliminary
objections, the Labour Court held that the
departmental enquiry was conducted in a
proper and legal manner, in which the
petitioner had himself participated. On the
second point, the Labour Court held that it
had jurisdiction to decide the case.

14. On the point referred to the Labour
Court for adjudication of the case, it held
that the punishment awarded to the
petitioner is proper and the dismissal order
dated 10.08.2000 does not want any
interference.

15. While assailing the aforesaid
award, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the Labour Court has
recorded the factual background of the case
while deciding the preliminary issue,
wherein it is stated that the petitioner had
been
appointed
as
an
Operator
on
12.07.1995. The Telco Employees Union
was constituted around that time and it had
entered into a settlement regarding fixation
of the salary in the year, 1996 which was in
force till 31.03.1999. Thereafter the Union
raised a fresh demand for increment of
wages and decided to reduce the pace of
production, which resulted in decrease of
production by 50%. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that these facts are
not borne out all the pleadings of the parties.

16. The Labour Court held that in reply
to the charge-sheet, the petitioner had
demanded certain documents. Clause 27 of
the Standing Orders of the Company,
demanded by the petitioner, had been shown
to him during enquiry. He had demanded a
copy of another report submitted against
him whereas no separate report had been
submitted against the petitioner. The
petitioner did not submit any reply to the
charge-sheet. The employer had appointed
an Enquiry Officer by means of a letter dated
15.05.2000 and the enquiry proceedings
commenced on 26.05.2000, on which date
the petitioner again demanded the copies of
documents. The employer's representative
submitted that the enquiry was based on
common facts, and, therefore, no separate
report was there. The petitioner was shown
Clause 7 of the Standing Order and he had
noted the same.

17. Statement of Sanjay Sablok was
recorded as employer witness and the
petitioner had cross-examined him on
15.06.2000. The petitioner stated that he was
unable to understand Clause 27 and he
wanted to engage a legal representative,
which was opposed by the employer stating
that no outsider could be permitted to be
involved in the departmental proceedings.
5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1891
Sri Vinay Pathak and Vikas Bindal were
examined in the presence of the petitioner
but he did not cross-examine them.

18. Accordingly, the Labour Court held
that enquiry against the petitioner was held
in a proper manner and there was no
illegality in it. While deciding the questions
referred to it by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner,
the
Presiding
Officer,
Labour Court held that the employee did not
lead any evidence and the employer also
stated that as the employee has not led any
evidence, the employer also would not given
any evidence. The Labour Court found that
it was for the petitioner to prove by leading
evidence as to how the departmental
proceedings had not been held properly, but
he failed to discharge this burden of proof by
leading any evidence.

19. The Labour Court further held that
during the proceedings before the Labour
Court,
the
petitioner
informed
on
07.07.2006 that he had filed a Writ Petition
No. 2601 of 2006 against the order passed
by the Labour Court, on which ground, time
was granted to him. However, this fact
stated by the petitioner was false as the Writ
Petition had already been dismissed on
24.05.2006 at the admission stage itself and
the petitioner had been permitted to
participate in further proceedings before the
Labour Court. At this stage, the petitioner
engaged another Advocate who gave an
application for directing the employers to
adduce evidences, upon which a detailed
order was passed on 28.02.2006 stating that
the employers cannot be compelled to lead
evidence because the reference was made at
the instance of the employee and the burden
to establish the illegality committed in the
enquiry proceedings lied on the employee
but he did not discharge this.

20. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has filed a copy of the enquiry report as
paper No. 13 and the learned counsel for the
employer had endorsed "Not Admitted" on
it and when the enquiry report itself had
been denied by the employer, no penal
action could be taken against the petitioner,
on the basis of such enquiry report, however,
the learned Labour Court has held that the
document No. 13, filed by the employee,
was an incomplete document as the enquiry
report filed by the employer as paper No. 66
contains a mention of 28 documents
whereas copy of the enquiry report filed by
the petitioner contains a list of only 25
documents and the copy of documents at
Serial Nos. 26, 27, 28 have not been filed
with it. It could have been done by the
petitioner deliberately or inadvertently but
in any case, the enquiry report filed by the
petitioner was not the same as the report
filed by the employer "not admitted, was
endorsed on the copy of the enquiry report
filed for the reason and the petitioner cannot
get any benefit from it".

21. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgments in
the cases of Anil Kumar v. Presiding
Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378, Rajeev Saxena
versus Punjab National Bank, 2018 (36)
LCD 1218, Canara Bank Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Ors.
2004 (102) FLR 1146 and Rajinder Kumar
Kindra v. Delhi Admn.: (1984) 4 SCC 635.

22. The learned Counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the judgments in
the cases of Airtech Private Ltd. v. State
of U.P., 1983 SCC OnLine All 954 and M.P.
Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra
Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401.
1892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding
Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378, it was held that:
-

"5. ... It is well-settled that a
disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasijudicial enquiry held according to the
principles of natural justice and the enquiry
officer has a duty to act judicially. The
enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the
evidence. Save setting out the names of the
witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence.
He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the
charges are proved. He did not assign a
single reason why the evidence produced by
the appellant did not appeal to him or was
considered not creditworthy. He did not
permit a peep into his mind as to why the
evidence produced by the management
appealed to him in preference to the
evidence produced by the appellant. An
enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry
must show the reasons for the conclusion. It
cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer.
It has to be a speaking order in the sense that
the conclusion is supported by reasons. This
is too well settled to be supported by a
precedent..."

6. Where a disciplinary enquiry
affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a
stigma and it has to be held in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, the
minimum expectation is that the report
must be a reasoned one. The Court then
may not enter into the adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence. But where the
evidence is annexed to an order sheet and
no corelation is established between the
two showing application of mind, we are
constrained to observe that it is not an
enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was
no enquiry in this case worth the name and
the order of termination based on such
proceeding disclosing non-application of
mind would be unsustainable."
(emphasis added)

24. In Rajeev Saxena versus Punjab
National Bank, 2018 (36) LCD 1218, it was
held that: -

"35. It is amply clear that the
petitioner's defence was not properly
considered
by
the
Inquiry
Officer,
disciplinary authority and also the appellate
authority. The punishment of dismissal from
service without notice was awarded to him
on the basis of defective inquiry, by
withholding prime witnesses from the
inquiry proceedings. The burden of proof of
disproving the charge was wrongly shifted
towards the petitioner. It was proved from
documentary evidence that the amount of
Rs. 10,000/- was received by Shri Vikas
Kudesia in cash, but the finding is that this
payment to Shri Vikas Kudesia was not
proved.
The
misconduct
of
posting
fraudulent entries was accepted by Shri
Vikas Kudesia in writing even then it was
attributed to the petitioner. Neither the
disciplinary nor the appellate authority
considered the defence and evidence of the
petitioner is correct perspective. Hence their
findings are perverse and deserve to be set
aside. The punishment awarded to the
petitioner is unwarranted. This is one of
such "exceptional case" as held by the Apex
Court above.

25. In Canara Bank Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Ors.
2004 (102) FLR 1146, it was held that even
if the domestic enquiry was proper and
valid, the labour court can reappraise the
entire evidence for recording it own findings
for the purposes of satisfying itself whether
the evidence relied on by the employer
establishes the misconduct alleged against
the workman.
5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1893

26. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v.
Delhi Admn.: (1984) 4 SCC 635 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

16. ... It is thus well-settled that
where the findings of misconduct are based
on no legal evidence and the conclusion is
one to which no reasonable man would
come, the arbitrator appointed under
Section 10-A or this Court in appeal under
Article 136 can reject such findings as
perverse. Holding that the findings are
perverse does not constitute reappraisal of
evidence, though we would have been
perfectly justified in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 11-A to do so.

17. It is equally well settled that
where a quasi-judicial tribunal or arbitrator
records findings based on no legal evidence
and the findings are either his ipse dixit or
based on conjectures and surmises, the
enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity
of non-application of mind and stands
vitiated. The Industrial Tribunal or the
arbitrator or a quasi-judicial authority can
reject not only such findings but also the
conclusion based on no legal evidence or if
it is merely based on surmises and
conjectures unrelated to evidence on the
ground that they disclose total nonapplication of mind....

* * *

20. Where the order of dismissal is
sought to be sustained on a finding in the
domestic enquiry which is shown to be
perverse and the enquiry is vitiated as
suffering from non-application of mind the
only course open to us is to set it aside and
consequently relief of reinstatement must be
granted and nothing was pointed to us why
we should not grant the same."

27. In Airtech Private Ltd. v. State of
U.P., 1983 SCC OnLine All 954, this Court
held that: -

"7. The matter can be looked at
from another angle, which party will fail if
the evidence is not led before the Labour
Court in proceedings in a reference made to
it
for
adjudication
by
the
State
Government ? The obvious answer is that
the workman will fail. Here the reference
was made by the State Government at the
instance of the workmen and for the benefit
of the workman. In the absence of any
evidence led by or on behalf of the workman
the reference is bound to be answered by the
Court against the workmen. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the
employers to lead any evidence at all...."

28. In Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) this
Court had relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar
Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
(1979) 3 SCC 371, wherein it was held that:
-

"31...It has to decide the lis on the
evidence adduced before it. While it may not
be hide bound by the rules prescribed in the
Evidence Act it is nonetheless a quasijudicial Tribunal proceeding to adjudicate
upon a lis between the parties arrayed
before it and must decide the matter on the
evidence produced by the parties before it. It
would not be open to it to decide the lis on
any extraneous considerations. Justice,
equity and good conscience will inform its
adjudication. Therefore, the Labour Court
or the Industrial Tribunal has all the
trappings of a Court.

32. If such be the duties and
functions of the Industrial Tribunal or the
Labour Court, any party appearing before it
must make a claim or demur the claim of the
other side and when there is a burden upon
it to prove or establish the fact so as to invite
a decision in its favour, it has to lead
evidence. The quasi-judicial tribunal is not
1894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required to advise the party either about its
rights or what it should do or omit to do.
Obligation to lead evidence to establish an
allegation made by a party is on the party
making the allegation. The test would be
who would fail if no evidence is led."

29. In M.P. Electricity Board v.
Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC
401, it was held that: -

"8. The question then is, whether
the interference with the punishment by the
Labour Court was justified? In other words,
the question is whether the punishment
imposed
was
so
harsh
or
so
disproportionate to the charge proved, that
it warranted or justified interference by the
Labour Court? Here, it had been clearly
found that the employee during work, had
hit his superior officer with a tension screw
on his back and on his nose leaving him with
a bleeding and broken nose. It has also been
found that this incident was followed by the
unauthorised absence of the employee. It is
in the context of these charges found
established
that
the
punishment
of
termination was imposed on the employee.
The jurisdiction under Section 107-A of the
Act to interfere with punishment when it is a
discharge or dismissal can be exercised by
the Labour Court only when it is satisfied
that the discharge or dismissal is not
justified. Similarly, the High Court gets
jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution only when it finds
that the punishment imposed, is shockingly
disproportionate to the charge proved.
* * *

...Recently, in Muriadih Colliery
BCC Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union
(2005) 3 SCC 331 this Court after referring
to and quoting the relevant passages from
Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh (2004) 8 SCC 200 and
Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen (1973) 2
SCC 502 held:

"The courts below by condoning
an act of physical violence have undermined
the discipline in the organisation, hence, in
the above factual backdrop, it can never be
said that the Industrial Tribunal could have
exercised its authority under Section 11-A of
the Act to interfere with the punishment of
dismissal."

9. In the case on hand, the
employee has been found guilty of hitting
and injuring his superior officer at the
workplace, obviously in the presence of
other employees. This clearly amounted to
breach of discipline in the organisation.
Discipline
at
the
workplace
in
an
organisation like the employer herein, is the
sine qua non for the efficient working of the
organisation. When an employee breaches
such discipline and the employer terminates
his services, it is not open to a Labour Court
or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view
that the punishment awarded is shockingly
disproportionate to the charge proved. We
have already referred to the views of this
Court. To quote Jack Chan,

"discipline is a form of civilly
responsible behaviour which helps maintain
social order and contributes to the
preservation,
if
not advancement,
of
collective interests of society at large".

Obviously this idea is more
relevant in considering the working of an
organisation like the employer herein or an
industrial
undertaking.
Obedience
to
authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is
not violative of one's natural rights. It is
essential
for
the
prosperity
of
the
organisation as well as that of its employees.
When in such a situation, a punishment of
termination is awarded for hitting and
injuring a superior officer supervising the
work of the employee, with no extenuating
5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1895
circumstance established, it cannot be said
to be not justified. It cannot certainly be
termed unduly harsh or disproportionate.
The Labour Court and the High Court in this
case totally misdirected themselves while
exercising their jurisdiction. The Industrial
Court made the correct approach and came
to the right conclusion."

30. The principles which can be culled
out from the aforesaid decisions are that a
disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasijudicial enquiry held according to the
principles of natural justice and the enquiry
officer has a duty to act judicially. The
enquiry report must reflect the reasons for its
conclusion. The Court may not enter into the
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. The
labour court has power to reappraise the
entire evidence for recording it own findings
for the purposes of satisfying itself whether
the evidence relied on by the employer
establishes the misconduct alleged against
the workman. Where the order of dismissal
is based on a perverse finding in the
domestic enquiry, the enquiry is vitiated as
suffering from non-application of mind and
it is unsustainable in law. The burden of
proof to challenge the validity of the enquiry
report or the order of punishment lies on the
workman who assails its validity. If he does
not discharge this burden, his claim is liable
to fail. The Courts will not interfere in the
quantum of punishment unless it is so
disproportionate as would shock the Court's
conscience.

31. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down in
the aforesaid precedents, what comes to
light is that the employer had submitted 28
documents before the Enquiry Officer and
the petitioner stated that he will not produce
any document in defence. The employer
produced four witnesses in support of its
case but the petitioner declined to crossexamine those witnesses.

32. The Enquiry Officer concluded that
all statements of the witnesses produced by
the
employer
established
that
on
28.03.2000,
the petitioner
had
made
'Gherao' of the General Manager of the
Company alongwith other employees. He
was present where speeches were being
given, obscene and intimidating slogans and
were being raised and the General Manager
was being forced to come out of his room to
accept the demands and when he did not
come out, the door of the General Manager
Lobby was broken open. He was 'Gheraoed'
for several hours. The Enquiry Officer also
referred to the photographs of the incident,
newspaper
cuttings,
FIR,
Charter
of
demands, medico legal examination reports
and report of damages, which established
the active involvement of the petitioner in
the incident. The statement of Sanjay Sablok
and Senior Engineer Vikas Bindal proved
that at that point of time, the petitioner was
not present in the department and he was
seen in the General Manager Officer. He was
stopped but he did not agree. Vikas Bindal
had seen the petitioner in the crowd that was
causing damage to the General Manager
Office.

33. The petitioner admitted during his
oral submissions that no work was being
done in the factory since morning of
28.03.2000 and he had gone to the General
Manager's
Office
alongwith
other
employees of B-shift and he was present in
the office of the General Manager. He
admitted that he had gone to attend the sit-in
and he had not done it under any fear. The
enquiry officer found that the entire
evidence available before him indicates that
the petitioner was involved with several
employees in laying 'Gherao' of General
1896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Manager, raising slogans, indulging in
damaging the company property and the
charges leveled against him were proved.

34. The petitioner had given an
application to the Enquiry Officer for being
represented in the enquiry by an outsider,
which request was not accepted by the
enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer has
erroneously mentioned that the petitioner
had given an application that he will
represent
himself,
but
this
error
is
insignificant and it does not vitiate the
outcome of the enquiry. At one place the
Enquiry Officer has wrongly mentioned the
name of PW-1 as Sri Amitabh Nandi
whereas PW-1 was Sri. Sanjay Sablok and
this error also does not vitiate the enquiry
report as there is sufficient material to
support the findings of the enquiry.

35. The Enquiry Officer has found that
the petitioner had made 'Gherao' of the
General Manager of the Company alongwith
other employees. He was present where
speeches were being given, obscene and
intimidating slogans and were being raised
and the General Manager was being forced
to come out of his room to accept the
demands and when he did not come out, the
door of the General Manager Lobby was
broken open. He was 'Gheraoed' for several
hours. The Enquiry Officer also referred to
the photographs of the incident, newspaper
cuttings, FIR, Charter of demands, medico
legal examination reports and report of
damages,
which
established
active
involvement of the petitioner in the incident.
The findings of the Enquiry Officer are
based on cogent material and the same are
not perverse.

36. The burden to prove that the
Enquiry Report was incorrect and the
dismissal order was bad in law lied on the
petitioner as he had sought to challenge the
same, but he did not lead any evidence
before the Labour Court also. Thus the
evidence led by the employer remained
uncontroverted.

37. The petitioner had left the place
assigned to him for performing his duty and
he had involved himself with numerous
other employees, who turned violent
causing
injuries
to
several
persons,
including
officials
of
the
District
Administration, Police and officials of the
company. The aforesaid acts or causing
damage to the company's property and
physical injuries to the company's officials
amount to indiscipline of the lowest
category, which cannot be tolerated by any
employer.
In
the
aforesaid
factual
background, the punishment of dismissal
from service cannot be said to be
disproportionate.

38. The Labour Court has not
committed any illegality in upholding the
order of dismissal of the petitioner from
service. The Writ Petition lacks merit and
the same is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1896
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 24 of 2009

M/s Raju Cement Store Oel ...Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P.
Commercial Tax ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
P. Agrawal