- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Obettee (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq Khan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent workman, along with other employees, went on strike on 2 May 1980. He allegedly prevented vehicles from leaving the factory, incited co-workers, and ignored the factory manager’s warnings. A charge-sheet was served and he, together with two co-workers (Chunnu and Vakil), was suspended. After the two co-workers tendered unqualified apologies and gave assurances of good conduct, their suspensions were revoked and no further action was taken against them. The respondent, however, contested the charges and did not apologise. Following a domestic enquiry, his services were terminated with effect from 11 April 1984.
The State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Registered as Adjudication Case No. 39 of 1986, the Tribunal initially found the enquiry unfair but allowed the employer to adduce evidence afresh. On reconsideration, it upheld the termination as “reasonable and legal.”
The respondent challenged the Tribunal’s award by a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had drawn an “artificial distinction” between the respondent and the two co-workers, inferring an apology from the respondent’s subsequent conduct. It quashed the termination, ordered reinstatement with 50 % back wages, and extended relief even if the respondent had reached superannuation.
The employer appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent workman’s termination, upheld by the Industrial Tribunal, was legally sustainable despite differential treatment vis-à-vis two co-workers who were let off with minor punishment.
- Whether the High Court erred in inferring an apology and thereby setting aside the Tribunal’s award.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Employer)
- The Tribunal correctly identified distinctive features: unlike the other two employees, the respondent never expressed regret or offered an apology.
- The respondent continued to justify the 2 May 1980 strike as legal, warranting harsher discipline.
- Consequently, the High Court’s reasoning was untenable and amounted to unwarranted interference with the Tribunal’s factual findings.
Respondent's Arguments (Workman)
- The Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach; absence of a written apology should not justify disparate treatment.
- No misconduct was attributed to the respondent after 2 May 1980, demonstrating his bona fides.
- The employer’s leniency towards Chunnu and Vakil should equally extend to the respondent to avoid discrimination.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177; (1989) 10 ATC 30 | Different employees may justifiably receive different punishments if their roles or conduct are not identical; parity is required only among similarly situated persons. | The Court relied on this case to affirm that Chunnu and Vakil, having tendered unqualified apologies, were not in the same position as the respondent, who persisted in justifying his actions. Therefore, applying different disciplinary measures did not amount to unfair discrimination. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the respondent’s stance materially differed from that of his co-workers. While Chunnu and Vakil accepted the charges, expressed remorse, and received only a written warning dated 11 April 1984, the respondent continued to defend the strike, offering no apology. Drawing on the principle articulated in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, the Court held that equality of punishment arises only among employees similarly circumstanced. Since the respondent’s conduct lacked the mitigating factor of an unqualified apology, the employer’s decision to impose the harsher penalty of termination was justified. The High Court’s inference of an apology was deemed speculative and unsupported by record. Consequently, the High Court’s interference with the Tribunal’s well-reasoned award was characterised as erroneous.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside; the Tribunal’s order upholding termination restored.
Immediate consequence: the respondent is not entitled to reinstatement or back wages, and the termination remains valid. Broader implication: the decision reaffirms that employers may impose different penalties on employees involved in the same incident when their individual conduct and subsequent attitudes materially differ; parity is not automatic in disciplinary matters.
Arijit Pasayat, J.— The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court holding that the termination order as passed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the employer”) was not sustainable in law.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”) filed a writ application for quashing the order dated 23-4-1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad (in short “the Tribunal”) holding that the termination of his service with effect from 11-4-1984 was reasonable and legal. A reference was made by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the U.P Act”) for adjudication by the Tribunal. The reference which was made on 21-6-1996 was registered as Adjudication Case No. 39 of 1986. After framing issues on the basis of the statement of payment and the written statement filed by the parties, initially the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. However, the employer was granted liberty to adduce evidence to substantiate its stand that the enquiry was fair and proper. On the basis of materials on record the Tribunal came to hold that the termination was in order.
3. The background in which the reference was made is as follows:
On 2-5-1980 workers of the employer under the instigation of the respondent workman went on strike. The respondent workman did not permit the vehicles carrying the articles to go out of the factory and he and others not only went on strike but also incited others to go on strike and threatened others. Though the factory Manager, V.R Sharma warned them not to go on strike but they did not pay any heed. Charge-sheet was given and the respondent workman concerned was suspended. Along with him two others, namely, Chunnu and Vakil were also proceeded against. At this juncture, the respondent workman and the other two gave in writing that their suspension may be withdrawn since they were giving assurance to perform their duties diligently and not to indulge in an activity like strike. There was further assurance that full cooperation would be given in the departmental proceedings. The employer revoked the suspension of the respondent workman concerned without prejudice to the right to hold the enquiry. Domestic enquiry was instituted and charges were levelled against five persons including the respondent workman concerned. During enquiry Chunnu and Vakil gave further assurance that they had tendered unqualified apology and indicated their remorse for having resorted to illegal strike. On the basis of the unqualified apology and the undertakings given, the appellant employer did not proceed further against them but the situation was different so far as the respondent workman was concerned.
4. It is to be noted that while Chunnu and Vakil accepted the correctness of the charges levelled against them and tendered apology, the respondent workman continued to contest the charges levelled against him. On appreciation of evidence the Tribunal came to hold that merely because no action was taken against Chunnu and Vakil, the position was not the same so far as the respondent workman is concerned. The distinctive features, so far as the respondent workman and the other two, namely, Chunnu and Vakil are concerned, were highlighted by the Tribunal. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the termination of the respondent workman was legal and proper.
5. In the writ petition filed before the High Court the primary stand was that there were no distinctive features so far as the writ petitioner was concerned. The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent workman and held that the distinction made by the Tribunal was clearly an artificial distinction. It was further held that though there was no subsequent apology tendered, the respondent workman had in letter and spirit shown his bona fides by not resorting to any strike subsequent to 2-5-1980 and there was clearly “inferred apology” on the part of the respondent workman. Accordingly the order of termination was set aside and it was directed that the respondent workman was to be reinstated in service if he had not attained the age of superannuation and was to be paid 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. It was further indicated that in case the respondent workman had attained the age of superannuation, then he would be awarded 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till he attained the age of superannuation.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable. The Tribunal had rightly noted the distinctive features so far as the respondent workman and the other two are concerned. While in the case of Chunnu and Vakil they had given undertakings and had expressed regrets for resorting to illegal strike, there was no such regret expressed by the respondent workman. On the contrary he tried to justify his action and even termed the strike on 2-5-1980 to be a legal one.
7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the Tribunal had taken a hypertechnical view. Even though he had not given undertaking as given by Chunnu and Vakil there was no allegation that he had resorted to any illegal act thereafter. Mere fact that he had tried to justify his action in the proceedings cannot be taken as a distinctive feature to make a departure from the benevolence shown to Chunnu and Vakil.
8. On consideration of the rival stands one thing becomes clear that Chunnu and Vakil stood on a different footing so far as the respondent workman is concerned. He had, unlike the other two, continued to justify his action. That was clearly a distinctive feature which the High Court unfortunately failed to properly appreciate. The employer accepted to choose the unqualified apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It cannot be said that the employer had discriminated so far as the respondent workman is concerned because as noted above he had tried to justify his action for which departmental proceedings were initiated. It is not that Chunnu and Vakil were totally exonerated. On the contrary, a letter of warning dated 11-4-1984 was issued to them.
9. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177, (1989) 10 ATC 30 the Administrative Tribunal had modified the punishment on the ground that two other persons were let off with minor punishment. This Court held that when all the persons did not stand on the same footing, the same yardstick cannot be applied. Similar is the position in the present case. Therefore, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.
10. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Alert