# Ram Prasad Prajapati v. Labour Court, (U.P.) at Allahabad and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9600 of 1984
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-prajapati-v-labour-court-u-p-at-allahabad-and-another-40140
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Dismissal-workman found guilty of using
abusive works-riotous and disorderly
violent behaviour-finding recorded by
Labour Court-not perverse-cannot be
interfered-dismissal order held proper.

Held- Para 14
From the record and the evidence which
was looked into by the Labour Court
under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes
Act
it
is
noted
that
the
workmen were found responsible in
riotous behaviour, beating the officials of
the company and using abusive language
and slogans. There are findings of fact by
the Labour Court. The Courts in catena of
decisions have held that the punishment
of dismissal for using abusive language
and beating the superior officers is
proportionate to the charge.
Case law discussed:
2002 (1985) FLR 949

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
takes a decision he does not do it as a
delegate of his Minister. He does it on
behalf of the Government. The officers
are the limbs of the Government, and not
its delegates. .....Constitutionally the act
or decision of the official is that of the
Minister."

10. In our opinion the order under
section 7 (4) is an Administrative order
and it is well settled that the Court has
very limited scope of interference in
administrative orders. The Court cannot
sit in appeal over administrative orders
vide
P.K.
Misra
vs.
Indian
oil
Corporation, 2002 (4) AWC 3221 (Para
11). The Court can only interfere with the
administrative orders if they are arbitrary
or mala fide. In Om Kumar vs. Union of
India, 2001 (2) SCC 386, the Supreme
Court
referred
to
the
wednesbury
Principle while discussing the scope of
judicial
review
of
administrative
decisions. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of
India, AIR 1996 SC 11, it was held that
the scope of such review is limited. In the
instant case we do not find any good
ground
for
interference
with
the
impugned order. Moreover, writ is a
discretionary remedy, and we are not to
exercise our discretion in this case.

We do not find any merit in the writ
petition and it is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9600 of 1984

Ram Prasad Prajapati
...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court, (U.P.) at Allahabad and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Singh
Sri Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.B. Saxena
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Dismissal-workman found guilty of using
abusive works-riotous and disorderly
violent behaviour-finding recorded by
Labour Court-not perverse-cannot be
interfered-dismissal order held proper.

Held- Para 14
From the record and the evidence which
was looked into by the Labour Court
under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes
Act
it
is
noted
that
the
workmen were found responsible in
riotous behaviour, beating the officials of
the company and using abusive language
and slogans. There are findings of fact by
the Labour Court. The Courts in catena of
decisions have held that the punishment
of dismissal for using abusive language
and beating the superior officers is
proportionate to the charge.
Case law discussed:
2002 (1985) FLR 949

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties
and
perused
the
record.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Prasad Prajapati V. Labour Court, Allahabad and another
627
This petition arises from an award
passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad
dated 23 Februrary, 1984 in Adjudication
Case No. 196 of 1981. The award was
enforced by publication on the Notice
board under Section 6 (3) of the U.P.
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
on
28.4.1984.

2. The dispute arises due to
termination of the services of the
petitioner on 18.12.1980 by the Company.
Aggrieved
by
his
termination
the
petitioner raised an industrial dispute,
which
was
referred
by
the
State
Governement in exercise of the powers
under Section 4-K of the Act to the
Labour Court Allahabad where it was
registered as Adjudication Case No. 196
of 1981.

3. The case set out by the employer
was that the workman along with other
workers assaulted the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company. He was found
responsible for riotous and disorderly
behaviour and was dismissed from service
after holding enquiry. It was also the case
of the employer that some of the workers
who were with the dismissed workman
had accepted their guilt, which establishes
the fact of involvement and participation
of the workman in the aforesaid act of
misconduct.

4. The case as set out by the
petitioner workman before the Labour
Court was that he was victimized for such
behaviour, charge sheeted for the alleged
misconduct and illegally dismissed from
service. Question mark was also raised
regarding the fairness of the domestic
enquiry on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties an additional issue was framed
before the Labour Court as to whether the
domestic enquiry by the employer was
fair and proper. The Labour Court by its
interim award held that the domestic
enquiry was fair proper and in accordance
with law. This interim award is also part
of the final award of the Labour Court.

5. By the impugned award the
Labour Court has held that the petitioner
workman misbehaved with the Chief
Executive Officer of the establishment of
the company, was involved in the act of
beating him along with others, instigated
other workers to indulge in such violent
activity and as such it was not proper to
keep such a person in service for the
reason that industrial discipline, peace and
harmony have to be maintained and if the
workman is let out, indiscipline would
increase. He found that the punishment of
dismissal was not disproportionate, illegal
and unjustified. The operative portion of
the findings recorded by the Labour Court
in paras 4, 5 and 6 are as under:

4.
bl fookn esa ,d izkjfEHkd okn fcUnq bl ckr dks
fuf'pr djus ds fy, cuk;k x;k fd ?kjsyw tkap U;k;laxr
vkSj mfpr <ax ls dh x;h ;k ughaA bl ckn fcUnw ij eSaus
1.12.83 dks fu.kZ; fn;k vkSj blesa eSaus tkap dh dk;Zokgh
dks mfpr rFkk U;k;laxr ik;k A vc dsoy ;g ns[kuk gS fd
Jfed dks tks n.M fn;k x;k og mfpr gS vFkok ughaA
5.
30.5.80 dh ?kVuk bl izdkj gqbZA fo?kqr foHkkx us
,d uksfVl fn;k fd 28.5.80 ls 2 twu lu 80 rd
dksbZ Hkh m?kksx laLFkk fctyh dk iz;ksx ugha djsxh A bl
uksfVl dks izkIr djus ij izfr"Bku us ys vkWQ dj fn;kA bl
ys vkQ ds dkj.k Jfedx.k mRrsftr gks x;s A 30.5.80
dks izkr% ukS cts dqN Jfedx.k us xSj dkuwuh etek cukdj
eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ds d{k esa ?kql x;s vkSj mUgsa
?klhVdj ckgj ys vk;s vkSj mudks ekjus yxsA ftu
deZpkfj;ksa us bu Jfedx.k dks jksdus dk iz;Ru fd;k] mUgsa
<dsy fn;k x;kA bl dk;Z esa lEcfU/kr Jfed us Hkkx fy;k
vkSj og ekjus okyksa dks mRrsftr djrk jgkA lEcfU/kr
Jfed rFkk muds vU; lkfFk;ksa dks vkjksi i= fn;s x;sA
Jfed us tkap dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx fy;kA mlus xokgksa ls ftjg
fd;kA tkap vf/kdkjh us 1.12.80 dks viuh fjiksZV fn;kA
lEiw.kZ lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k djus ds mijkUr og bl fu"d"kZ
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ij igqWapk fd vkjksfir Jfedx.k ij yxk;s x;s lHkh vkjksi
fl) gq;sA ;g fu.kZ; esa igys gh ns pqdk gwa fd tkap dh
dk;Zokgh U;k;laxr vkSj mfpr <ax ls dh x;h gSA

6.
izfr"Bku ds eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ds lkFk
nqO;Zogkj djus esa lEcfU/kr Jfed us Hkkx fy;kA dqN Jfed
us eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh dks ekjk ihVk lEcfU/kr Jfed us
bu ekjus okyksa dks mRrsftr fd;kA esjs fopkj ls bl izdkj
ds Jfed dks lsok esa j[kuk mfpr ugha gS] D;ksafd bl izdkj
ds yksxksa ls vuq'kklughurk dks c<+kok feysxkA esjs fopkj ls
lsok eqDr dk vkns'k fdlh izdkj ls voS/k ;k vuqfpr ugha
gSA

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has denied in his argument that the
workman concerned was dismissed from
service for any trade union activity. It is
alleged that he was dismissed from
service as he was found responsible to
organize riotous and disorderly behaviour
and such an act cannot be said to be a
trade union activity.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in paras 1 and 3 of the
written statement filed by the employer it
has been stated that the petitioner along
with others forcibly entered in the office
of the respondents and assaulted the
Officer but in the enquiry the Chief
Security Officer has stated that the
workman tried to enter in the gate and
there were 200 workers whereas the
Labour Court in its award held that the
petitioner was only inciting the workers.
On the basis of these averments the
argument
advanced
by
the
learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
finding of the labour Court that the
petitioner
was
inducing
the
other
workmen is never pleaded in the written
statement filed by the employer hence it
can not be improved by any other
evidence. He has placed reliance on 1982
Smt. Bibbe Vs. Smt. Ram Kali, A.W.C.
665 in which it has been held that a
decision based on facts not pleaded. No
evidence would be permissible to be led
with regard to a fact, which has not been
pleaded. Relying the case of Sy. Yakub
Vs. K.S. Radhe Krishnan 1964 SC-477
he submits that the perversity of the order
would warrants intervention by High
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India. It is not denied that
there was no evidence against the
workman to incite the other workers and
participate in the beating of the Chief
Executive Officer.

8. Though it has not been alleged in
the written statement of the employer that
the petitioner has incited the other
workers but by this the gravity of his
misconduct is not reduced to an extent
that punishment other than dismissal may
be given. In paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the
written statement it has been stated that
on 30.5.80 some workmen of the concern
along with Ram Prasad, Chandra Bali,
Bhola, Lal Mani Akhaibar and others left
their place of work and forcibly entered in
the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of Company pulled him out of the office,
man handled him and also assaulted other
officers of the Company. It is also stated
that Ram Prasad and six others were
assaulting the officers in broad daylight in
presence of several employees of the
company.
They
were
immediately
recognized and in view of the seriousness
of the miscondenct of involvement in the
riotous
and
disorderly
behaviour
collectively and they were charged of the
offence and dismissed from service. There
is sufficient evidence on record of
involvement and participation of the
worker in the aforesaid acts of misconduct
and argument to the contrary is against
the record.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Prasad Prajapati V. Labour Court, Allahabad and another
629
9. The second argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
even if the charge of inducement is
proved dismissal of the petitioner from
service on the background of facts of the
case is excessive and disproportionate to
the charge leveled against him. He
submits that the background of the case is
explained in para 5 of the award and that
the plea of Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act was considered by the
Labour Court in para 4 of the award and
as such, this Court may interfere in the
matter as the Labour Court in exercise its
power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act as the same was
pleaded before the Labour Court. The
quantum
of
punishment
is
not
proportionate to the charge levelled
against the petitioner. In this regard he has
placed reliance on AIR 1982 Rama Kant
Misra Vs. State of U.P. SC-1552, 1984
Ved Prakash Vs. M/s Delton Cable SC914 and 1989 (i) SCJ 232 Scooter India
Limited Vs. Labour Court.

10. However, from the award it is
clear that the Labour Court has given a
finding of fact that the punishment was
not disproportionate to the charge levelled
against him as such the aforesaid cases of
Rama Kant, Ved Prakash and Scooter
India Limited (Supra) are not applicable
to the facts of the present case.

11. Relying on the case of Dr.
Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. U.O.I.,
1994 2SCC-416, B.C. Chaturvedi Vs.
U.O.I., 1995 6 SCC-749, Ram Kishan
Vs.
U.O.I.,
1995
6
SCC-157,
U.P.S.R.T.C.
Vs.
Mahesh
Kumar
Misra, 2000 (3) SCC-450 and Shiv
Prakash Rai Vs. State of U.P., 2001 3
UPLBEC 2222 he submits that even if
plea of awarding lesser punishment is not
taken before the High Court, it can still in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India may interfere if it
feels that the punishment is highly
disproportionate
to
the
charge/
misconduct.

12. He further submits that Section
2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 which is equivalent to Section 11-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central)
was inserted by U.P. Act No. 34 of 1978.
There is no ban or restriction on exercise
of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. He submits that by the insertion of
this Section the powers of the authority
giving the award in the matter of relief
has been widened as now the authority
making the award has power to substitute
the punishment given by the employer
and reinstate the workman on the terms
and conditions it deems fit and proper.

13. From perusal of the record it
appears that the Labour Court has
recorded a categorical finding regarding
the guilt and participation of the workman
in riotous behaviour inciting the workers
and beating the Chief Executive Officer
of the company. The punishment of
dismissal awarded for such riotous and
disorderly violent behaviour can not be
said to be too harsh. Peace and harmony
are necessary elements for creation of
industrial
atmosphere
conducive
for
production and if this is disturbed the
relationship between the master and the
servant would be strained and production
will suffer. If this is viewed with notional
angle loss in production could be national
loss. The reasons given by the Labour
Court for not reinstating the petitioner are
cogent reasons. After examining the
evidence and the arguments I find that the
Labour Court has neither committed any
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
error in law in holding the workman
guilty and nor the award is perverse. The
findings of fact, which are not perverse,
should not be overturned in exercise of
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India. I am also supported
with my view by a recent judgment of the
Apex Court in 2002 (1985) FLR 949 M/s
Esen Dinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar in this
regard.

14. From the record and the
evidence which was looked into by the
Labour Court under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act it is noted that the
workmen were found responsible in
riotous behaviour, beating the officials of
the company and using abusive language
and slogans. There are findings of fact by
the Labour Court. The Courts in catena of
decisions have held that the punishment
of dismissal for using abusive language
and beating the superior officers is
proportionate to the charge.

15. For these reasons and as a result
of the aforesaid discussions it is not a fit
case for exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The writ
petition fails and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 7008 of 1984

Yogesh Chandra Rajvedi
...Petitioner
Versus
II Additional District Judge, Kanpur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Navin Sinha
Sri Vipin Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri S.K. Chaturvedi
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting & Rent) Control Act 1972-U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972-Section 18 (3)-power
of
the
Execution
Court-District
Magistrate
exercising
power
of
execution
authority-whether
can
go
beyond the terms of judgement/order?
Held 'No'.

Held- Para 14

The District Magistrate while exercising
power under section 18 (3) of the Act to
that of executing Court, cannot go
beyond the terms of the order sought to
be enforced and he cannot enter into the
merit or de-merit of the case. The same
view has been held by this court in 1998
(1) AWC 260 Dr. Smt. Keshav Devi Vs.
The
Addl.
District
Magistrate
(Civil
Supply) Lucknow and 1984(1) ARC 327
Abdul Ghafoor Vs. The Rent Control and
Eviction Officer/D.S.O. Saharanpur and
another.
Case law discussed:
1998 (1) AWC-260
1984 (1) ARC-32
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in