Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10125  OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 37619/2012)

COLLECTOR SINGH       ...Appellant

Versus

L.M.L. LTD., KANPUR     ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service  

of the appellant is disproportionate to the act of misconduct  

proved  against  the  appellant  and  whether  the  concurrent  

findings of the Courts below need to be interfered with are the  

points falling for consideration in this appeal.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are  

as  follows:-  The  appellant  was  working  as  a  semi-skilled

Page 2

workman  since  15.8.1986  in  the  respondent-company,  

namely,  M/s.  L.M.L.  Limited  (Scooter  Unit),  Kanpur.  The  

appellant was served with a charge-sheet on 18.4.1992 stating  

that on that date, he threw jute/cotton waste balls hitting the  

face of Laxman Sharma, Foreman in the said company and on  

objecting to the same, the appellant is alleged to have further  

abused him with filthy language and also threatened him with  

dire consequences outside the premises of their factory.  On  

25.4.1992, the appellant submitted an apology letter stating  

that  he  had  thrown  piece  of  jute  which  fell  on  Foreman  

Laxman Sharma by mistake and seeking pardon for the same.  

A departmental inquiry was conducted on 25.5.1992 and the  

appellant  was  given  adequate  opportunity  to  cross-examine  

the  witnesses  as  well  as  for  putting  forth  his  defence.  The  

Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the appellant  

was  guilty  of  misconduct  and  on  the  basis  of  the  enquiry  

report, the appellant was dismissed from the services of the  

company by an order dated 24.6.1992.

4. Aggrieved by the order of  dismissal,  the appellant  

raised  an  industrial  dispute  which  was  registered  as  

Adjudication No.178/1994 before the Labour Court, Kanpur.  

2

Page 3

The  Labour  Court  relied  upon  the  letter  of  apology  dated  

25.4.1992 and by its  award dated 17.9.1996, held that  the  

termination  of  services  of  the  appellant  was  justified.  

Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  appellant  filed  a  writ  petition  

before the High Court and vide its order dated 24.9.2012, High  

Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the award passed  

by  the  Labour  Court.   Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  

appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave.  This  

Court has issued notice limited to the question of quantum of  

punishment.   

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  

charges  against  the  appellant  are  minor  charges  of  alleged  

throwing of jute/cotton waste balls and even assuming that  

the charges had been proved, dismissal from service for such a  

minor act of misdemeanor is harsh and disproportionate and  

prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.       

6. The first limb of contention advanced at the hands  

of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  was  that  the  

discretionary  power  exercised  by  the  Labour  Court  under  

Section 11A of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act  to  set  aside the  

punishment  of  discharge  or  dismissal  has  to  be  exercised  

3

Page 4

judiciously  with care and caution and before  exercising the  

said discretion, the finding that order of discharge or dismissal  

was not justified is necessary.  In support of his contention,  

learned  counsel  placed  reliance  upon  the  judgment  of  this  

Court in Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka  

Road Transport  Corporation,  (2013)  10  SCC  185.   Learned  

counsel for the respondent then contended that the appellant  

is  a  habitual  offender  and  on  a  previous  occasion,  on  

18.7.1988  the  appellant  had  misbehaved  with  a  co-worker  

whereby a warning notice  had been issued to the appellant  

and the appellant assured never to repeat such an act.   It was  

submitted  that  inspite  of  such  warning  the  appellant  was  

again defiant and having regard to the gravity of charges, the  

Management  imposed punishment  of  dismissal  from service  

and  Labour  Court  rightly  held  that  such  punishment  was  

justified.

7.  Yet another argument advanced on behalf  of  the  

respondent  was  that  use  of  abusive  language  against  the  

Foreman is a serious misconduct and punishment of dismissal  

from service cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate.  

It was submitted that any leniency towards such misconduct  

4

Page 5

would  have  serious  impact  on  the  discipline  amongst  the  

workmen in the factory and keeping in view the gravity of the  

charges  proved,  the  courts  below  have  rightly  declined  to  

interfere with the quantum of punishment.  To substantiate  

his  contention,  learned  counsel  placed  reliance  upon  a  

number of judgments.      

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the  

rival contentions of  both parties and perused the impugned  

order and the materials on record.

9. Insofar  as  the  first  limb  of  contention  as  to  the  

satisfaction of Labour Court in interfering with the discretion  

of the authority, considering the findings of the courts below  

in our considered view, the Labour Court and the High Court  

did  not  properly  appreciate  tenor  of  the  apology  letter.  

Courts below appear to have proceeded on the premise that in  

his apology letter, the appellant has admitted the said incident  

on  18.4.1992.   Courts  below  held  that  the  charges  proved  

against the workman are not only throwing jute/cotton waste  

balls  on  his  superior  officer/the  Foreman,  but  for  alleged  

misbehaviour using filthy language and in such circumstance,  

punishment  of  dismissal  imposed  by  the  Management  is  

5

Page 6

justified.   By perusal of the contents of the said apology letter,  

it  is  discerned that  the appellant  has made admission only  

with  respect  to  throwing  of  the  jute/cotton  waste  balls  by  

mistake and further stating that such a mistake would not be  

repeated in future and that he be pardoned for the same.  The  

letter nowhere states that the appellant was involved in the  

incident of hurling abuses and using filthy language against  

his superior officer.  In essence, even the incident of throwing  

of jute/cotton waste balls at the Foreman has been stated as a  

mistake.  As we have already observed use of abusive language  

is not established by the apology letter.  Therefore, mere act of  

throwing of jute/cotton waste balls weighing 5 to 10 gms may  

not by itself lead to imposing punishment of  dismissal from  

service.  In such a situation, we find it difficult to fathom a  

reason for placing such excessive reliance on the apology letter  

by the enquiry officer appointed for the departmental enquiry  

as well as the courts below for justifying the punishment of  

dismissal from service.

10. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is  

extraordinary and interference with the concurrent findings of  

fact  recorded  by  the  courts  below  is  permissible  only  in  

6

Page 7

exceptional cases and not as a matter of course.  Where the  

appreciation of evidence is found to be wholly unsatisfactory  

or the conclusion drawn from the same is perverse in nature,  

in  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution,  this  Court  may  interfere  with  the  concurrent  

findings for doing complete justice in the case.  In the facts  

and circumstances of the case, in our view, it is a fit case to  

exercise the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution  

to interfere with the conclusion of the Labour Court upholding  

the punishment of dismissal as affirmed by the High Court.   

11. Insofar as the next limb of contention at the hands  

of the learned counsel for the respondent as to the quantum of  

punishment, it is not necessary for us to refer to the plethora  

of  judgments  relied  upon  by  the  respondent.   In  those  

decisions, the termination of services was held to be justified  

on the basis of abusive and filthy language in the light of the  

facts and circumstances of those cases.  It is well settled that  

the court or the tribunal will not normally interfere with the  

discretion of the disciplinary authority in imposing of penalty  

and  substitute  its  own  conclusion  or  penalty.  But  the  

punishment  should  be  commensurate  with  the  proved  7

Page 8

misconduct.  However,  if  the  penalty  imposed  is  

disproportionate with the misconduct committed and proved,  

then the Court would appropriately mould the relief either by  

directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider  

the  penalty  imposed  or  to  shorten  the  litigation,  it  may  in  

exceptional  cases even impose appropriate punishment with  

cogent  reasons  in  support  thereof.  This  principle  was  

reiterated in various decisions of this Court in  Dev Singh  vs.   

Punjab  Tourism  Development  Corporation.  Ltd.  &  Anr.,  

(2003) 8 SCC 9, Om Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India, (2001) 2  

SCC 386,  Union of India & Anr.  vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7  

SCC 463 and  Ex-Naik Sardar  Singh  vs.  Union of India and  

Ors.,   (1991) 3 SCC 213.    

12. Considering  the  scope  of  judicial  review  on  the  

quantum of punishment and referring to various cases in Jai  

Bhagwan vs.  Commissioner  of  Police  & Ors.  (2013)  11  SCC  

187, in which one of us (Justice T.S. Thakur) was a member,  

this Court held as under:-  

“What  is  the  appropriate  quantum  of  punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter  that primarily rests in the discretion of the disciplinary  authority.   An  authority  sitting  in  appeal  over  any  such order of punishment is by all means entitled to  examine  the  issue  regarding  the  quantum  of  punishment  as  much  as  it  is  entitled  to  examine  

8

Page 9

whether the charges have  been satisfactorily proved.  But  when  any  such  order  is  challenged  before  a  Service  Tribunal  or  the  High  Court  the  exercise  of  discretion by the competent authority in determining  and  awarding  punishment  is  generally  respected  except where the same is found to be so outrageously  disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that  the Court considers it be arbitrary in that it is wholly  unreasonable.  The superior  courts  and the Tribunal  invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been  gradually  accepted  as  one  of  the  facets  of  judicial  review.  A  punishment  that  is  so  excessive  or  disproportionate  to  the  offence  as  to  shock  the  conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even  when  courts  are  slow  and  generally  reluctant  to  interfere with the quantum of punishment.  The law on  the  subject  is  well  settled  by  a  series  of  decisions  rendered by this Court…..”

13. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that  

the punishment of dismissal from service for the misconduct  

proved  against  the  appellant  is  disproportionate  to  the  

charges.   In Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in  

(1995)  6  SCC 157,  the  delinquent  employee  was  dismissed  

from  service  for  using  abusive  language  against  superior  

officer.  On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court  

held that the punishment was harsh and disproportionate to  

the  gravity  of  the  charge  imputed  to  the  delinquent  and  

modified  the  penalty  to  stoppage  of  two  increments  with  

cumulative effect.  The Court held as under:-  

“It is next to be seen whether imposition of the  punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate  to  the  gravity  of  the  imputation.   When  abusive  

9

Page 10

language  is  used  by  anybody  against  a  superior,  it  must be understood in the environment in which that  person is situated and the circumstances surrounding  the event that led to the use of abusive language. No  strait-jacket  formula  could  be  evolved  in  adjudging  whether  the  abusive  language  in  the  given  circumstances would warrant dismissal from service.  Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What  was the nature of the abusive language used by the  appellant was not stated.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, we  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the  imposition  of  punishment  of  dismissal  from service  is  harsh  and  disproportionate  to  the gravity  of  charge  imputed to  the delinquent constable. Accordingly, we set aside the  dismissal order…….”

Reference may also be made to the decisions of this Court in  

Rama  Kant   Misra  vs.  State  of   Uttar   Pradesh  &  Ors.,  

(1982) 3 SCC 346 and  Ved Prakash Gupta vs.  Delton Cable  

India(P) Ltd.; (1984) 2 SCC 569.

14. The  High  Court  has  relied  on  the  judgment  in  

Mahindra  and  Mahindra  Ltd.  vs.  N.B.Narawade,  

(2005) 3 SCC 134, wherein  it was held  that the penalty of  

dismissal  on  the  alleged  use  of  filthy  language  is  not  

disproportionate to the charge  as it disturbs  the discipline in  

the  factory.  We  are  of  the  view  that  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the present case, the above decision may not  

be applicable.  Considering the totality of the circumstances,  

10

Page 11

in our view, the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh  

and disproportionate and the same has to be set aside.   

15.        Having said that the punishment of dismissal from  

service is harsh and disproportionate, this Court in ordinary  

course  would  either  order  reinstatement  modifying  the  

punishment  or  remit  the  matter  back  to  the  disciplinary  

authority for passing fresh order of punishment.  But we are  

deliberately  avoiding  the ordinary course.   We are doing so  

because nearly two decades have passed since his termination  

and over these years the appellant must have been gainfully  

employed elsewhere.  Further, the appellant was born in the  

year 1955 and has almost reached the age of superannuation.  

In  such  circumstances,  there  cannot  be  any  order  of  

reinstatement and award of  lump sum compensation would  

meet the ends of justice.  Considering the length of service of  

the appellant in the establishment and his deprivation of the  

job over the years and his gainful employment over the years  

elsewhere, in our view, lump sum amount of compensation of  

Rs.5,00,000/-  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice  in  lieu  of  

reinstatement, back wages,  gratuity and in full  quit of  any  

other amount payable to the appellant.

11

Page 12

16. In the result, the impugned Order of the High Court  

dated  24.9.2012  passed  in  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  

No.12157/1997 confirming the award of the Labour Court is  

set  aside  and  the  appeal  is  allowed.  The  respondent-

management is directed to pay the amount of compensation of  

Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant  within a period of  six weeks  

from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which,  the  

said amount  is  payable  with interest  at  the rate  of  9% per  

annum thereon.

……………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………….J. (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; November 11, 2014         

12