Mumbai: Bombay high court, on Friday, overturned a 2012 tribunal order that set aside a 2001 termination by a disciplinary panel of a Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) workman for slapping a supervisor. HC said it was “startled’’ that the industrial tribunal in 2012 found it not to be serious enough to merit his sacking.
The central govrnment industrial tribunal (CGIT) had said the workman had “merely’’ slapped the cheek of the officer 28 years ago, in 1996, and didn’t intend to nor inflict any physical injury.
The CGIT had said the punishment imposed on the workman had shocked its conscience. However, Justice Sandeep Marne held, “These findings recorded by the Presiding Officer are astounding’’ and also “shocking” and unsustainable.
The HC, however, agreeing with contention of HPCL in its petition against the tribunal order, said, an assault on a co-employee is the “gravest form of misconduct which a workman can commit’’.
The tribunal that handles disputes between workmen and employers had said termination was extreme and disproportionate, a punishment. While restoring the workman’s job, the tribunal, however, had punished him by knocking off an increment. The workman, Mavji Rathod, a bulk operator had on June 23, 1996, allegedly snatched a corrected invoice from a truck driver, went to his shift supervisor and slapped him across his right cheek, allegedly “without provocation.’’
Rathod was placed under suspension the next day and an enquiry later, dismissed from service in May 2001 by the disciplinary authority. Both HPCL and the bulk operator challenged the CGIT order before the HC. The company challenged the reinstatement and the workman, claiming “discrimination’’ sought full back wages. The HC found no merit in his plea. Dismissing the workman’s petition, the HC ruled. “Slapping him superior by the workman is one of the gravest forms of misconduct, which ought to be visited with penalty of termination.’’ The HC said “therefore it holds that the tribunal order is unsustainable and that the original punishment of termination of service is commensurate with workman’s misconduct. The HC added, “After holding that the charges against the workman were proved, the Tribunal ought to have upheld the dismissal.”
The Bombay high court supported HPCL’s termination of workman Mavji Rathod for assaulting a supervisor, emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for disciplinary action to maintain order in the workplace.
Bombay High Court overturned a 1997 MATC order on a head-on collision, ruling it not an ‘act of God’. Compensation awarded to the deceased car owner’s family, with multiple legal and medical complexities involved in the case.
Bombay High Court’s judgment under the Senior Citizens Act emphasized safeguarding parents’ residence rights in gifted properties, nullifying fraudulent transfers, and clarifying kin obligations towards elders.
