Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & another Vs. Kailash Chandra
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
WA, 240 and 247 of 2018, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2021
Law laid down -
Alternative Remedy-Article 226 of the Constitution and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - The respondent employees were “workmen” and appellant Corporation is an 'industry' within the meaning of ID Act, 1947. The employer contended that writ petition could not have been entertained and respondents should have been relegated to avail the remedy under the ID Act. The contention is not accepted because (i) the punishment orders under question before the learned Single Judge were based on admitted documents of departmental inquiry. No disputed questions of facts were involved. Writ petitions were filed way back in 2009-10. Hence, at this stage, it will not be proper to relegate the respondents to avail the remedy under the ID Act.
Judicial Review-Departmental Inquiry- The judicial review is confined to the decision making process and not on the decision. If procedure of inquiry suffers from serious procedural impropriety and perversity, interference can be made. Interference can also be made if punishment imposed is found to be shockingly disproportionate.
The quantum of punishment- Depends on nature of duties and responsibilities, nature of specific allegations/charge, nature of role played and established with regard to each employee etc.
Discrimination in punishment - The respondent/ministerial employees were dismissed from service whereas officers were given smaller punishments. It sought to be justified by arguing that the question of discrimination would arise when charges are exactly similar. The officers were charged for not exercising proper “supervision” and “control”. The Court found no difficulty in accepting legal principle but on facts, found that officers were also subjected to disciplinary proceeding for allegation of connivance, creation of document and other charges which were almost similar to that of alleged against the respondent/ministerial employees.
Practice and procedure – Writ appeals are filed by the employer. The respondent/employees did not prefer any writ appeal against the order of Writ Court. It is not open to them to point out flaws in a Writ Appeal filed by the employer in the order of Writ Court, which were not dealt with and decided by the Court.
Substituted punishment and grant of back wages and other benefits – When punishment is found to be excessive and matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to impose any other punishment, the other/substituted punishment will govern the benefits arising thereto.
Substituted punishment - When an extreme punishment is substituted by another punishment, it will relate back to the date of original punishment.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & another Vs. Kailash Chandra