MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD versus JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 04-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
v. 
JAGDISl-I CHANDRA SHARMA 
MARCI-I 4, 2005 
(N. SANTOSl-l l-IEGDE, TARUN CHATTERJFE AND P.K. 
B 
BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section I IA-Madhya Pradesh Industrial C 
Relations Act, 1962-Section JO? A-Misconduct-Charges of physically 
assaulting superior officer at work place followed by unauthorised absence 
from duty, found proved against the delinquent employee-Punishment of 
dismissal by employer set aside by labour Court on ground that the punishment 
was punitive-Order of labour Court though reversed by Industrial Court in D 
appeal, was restored by High Court in its writ jurisdiction-Interference with 
punishment imposed by the employer-Propriety of-Held : On facts, the 
punishment imposed was not so harsh or disproportionate to the charges 
proved so as to warrant interference by the labour Court-High Court exceeded 
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in interfering with the 
punishment imposed. 
E 
Employee, a muster roll labourer, during work, allegedly hit his 
superior officer with a tension screw on his back and on his nose leaving 
him with a bleeding and broken nose; and thereafter remained 
unauthorizedly absent for three weeks. The Enquiry Officer found the 
charges proved, based on which services of the employee were terminated. F 
On reference, Labour Court did not disagree with the finding of 
misconduct as recorded at the enquiry, but set aside termination holding 
the punishment to be punitive in nature. It ordered reinstatement of the 
employee but without back wages. In appeal, the Industrial Court set aside 
the order of the Labour Court and held that the termination of service as 
a punishment was justified. The employee filed writ petition, whereupon 
High Court restored the decision of the Labour Court. 
Allowing the appeal of the employer and dismissing the employee's 
559 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. It is clear from the findings recorded and the materials 
available, that the charge against the employee of hitting a superior officer 
with an implement and causing him injury stood proved, as also his 
absence from duty without intimation. In fact, the Labour Court has found 
B nothing wrong with the domestic enquiry wherein the charges were found 
to have been proved. The Labour Court also proceeded on the basis that 
the charges were proved. The Industrial Court in appeal accepted the 
finding that the charges against the employee were proved. The High 
Court also held that the charges against the employee stood prove1. The 
C High Court also took note of the fact that the employee did not even 
challenge this part of the finding of the Labour Court in the appeal, he 
filed before the Industrial Court. Thus, it is clear that there is no reason 
for this Court to interfere with the finding that the charges against the 
employee stood proved, even assuming that the employee is permitted to 
raise the question regarding proving of the charges against him. The 
D materials clearly disclose that the charges were proved. (564-C-Fl 
2; Section 107 A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 
1962 is almost a reproduction of Section l lA of the Industrial Disputes 
Act. The jurisdiction under Section 107 A of the Madhya Pradesh 
E Industrial Relations 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 
F proved. [564-G; 565-B, q 
UP. State Road Transport C01pn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Ors., 
(20001 3 SCC 324; Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor 
Sangh and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 2000; Bharat Forge Company Ltd. v. Uttam 
Manohar Nakate, (2005) 1 SCALE 345; Mahindra and Mahindra ltd. v. N. 
G B. Narawade, (2005) 2 SCALE 302; Orissa Cement ltd. v. V. Adikanda Sahu 
(1960) 1 LLJ-518-SC; New Shorrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao, (1996(6 
SCC 590 and Employers, Management, Muriadih Col/ie1y Mis BCCL ltd. v. 
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Through Workmen JT (2005)2 SC 444, relied 
on. 
H 
State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996( 6 SCC 417 and The 
M.P. ELECTRICITY

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.