In order to establish absolute authority in employment relations, many employers very frequently resort to arbitrariness in their dealings with employees, particularly in their hire-and-fire policies and disciplinary action. To impose punishment for indiscipline in the workplace is indeed a managerial prerogative and our judiciary has never looked leniently at indiscipline. However, it is also essential that the punishment should always be proportionate to the act of indiscipline, and not exorbitant or shocking; otherwise it is liable to be quashed.

In a recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Messrs Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur v/s Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun (2005-Lab.I.C-1886), Justice Rakesh Tiwari quashed the disproportionate punishment of the termination of service of a Security Inspector for a minor lapse in the performance of his duty. The punishment of termination was replaced by a milder punishment of stopping one increment and withholding wages for the period of suspension.

Facts of the case:

On 8 January 1998, some labourers gathered at the time office of the company following the death of a workman who died an unnatural death in the factory. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. In the early afternoon after the incident, a procession of workmen reached the gates of the factory, which were closed. The leaders were allowed to enter the gate to discuss the situation with the management. The leaders went in and out through a wicket gate while the talks were going on. The remaining workers gathered outside, blocking the outside road. Late in the afternoon, the workmen waiting outside became impatient and tried to climb the gate.

Security Inspector S.P. Singh Verma, who was guarding the gate, opened the small wicket gate, on instructions received from the Joint Manager (Administration), to let out persons carrying mail. At this time, some workmen forcibly entered through the gate. The Security Inspector and some other guards prevented them from reaching the Administration block. Subsequently, the company terminated the services of the Security Inspector, on the assumption that such a security lapse could have resulted in huge losses to the company, had any untoward incident happened. The company took the view that since the duties of the Security Inspector were more of a supervisory nature and he was drawing a salary of about Rs 6,000 per month, he was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[I.D. Act].

The Labour Court held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified, being too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. The Labour Court awarded his reinstatement with full back wages and a direction to stop one increment and withhold the wages for the period of suspension.

In an appeal against the award of the Labour Court in the High Court of Allahabad, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the award of the Labour Court observing that looking to the duties of the Security Inspectors and their status in the hierarchy of the organisation, it is clear that the Security Inspectors do not discharge either managerial or supervisory duties. The Security Inspector can neither grant leave to subordinate staff nor can he take any disciplinary action against any person. The Security Inspector is subject to the instructions from Senior Security Officers and Administrative Officers, and, therefore, he can validly be considered as a workman under the I.D. Act.

In this particular case, the Security Officer had received instructions from a superior officer to open the wicket gate to let out the person carrying mail from inside the factory premises. By doing so, he followed the instructions of a superior officer and, therefore, did not commit any breach of duty or any serious misconduct. On the same day, earlier also, he had opened the gate twice or thrice on the instructions of higher officers to let out persons from the inside the factory premises while the talks with the management were going on. But no workers from outside had entered through the gate then. The incident for which the Security Inspector was terminated was unforeseeable; he along with some guards stopped the workers from entering the administration block. The High Court held that the apprehension shown by the management that huge losses may have been caused to the company had there been any untoward incident due to forcible entry of such unauthorized persons appears to have been blown out of proportion to justify their action of termination. The finding of the Labour Court that the Security Inspector is a workman and the punishment awarded to him was highly disproportionate and shocking is not perverse and is based on an appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the High Court held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award of the Labour Court, and the termination of the workman was not proper.

In another Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajeshkumar Gupta & Ors. vs State of U.P. (2005-Lab.I.C.-2087), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a government order providing for reservation of 50 per cent of the posts in favour of female candidates while selecting candidates for training for appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary schools in U.P.

U.P. was experiencing a severe shortage of teachers for primary education. To solve this problem, it decided to impart two months special training to candidates who have done their B.Ed./LT. The government order provided that 50 per cent of the selected candidates shall be from Science stream, 50 per cent from the Arts stream; further, 50 per cent shall be female candidates and 50 per cent shall be male candidates. This order was challenged as violative of Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Articles 15 (3) of the Constitution enables a state government to make special provisions for women and children, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Article 15(1). Particularly in view of the background that a large number of young girls below the age of 10 years were taught in the primary school, and recognising that it would be preferable that such young girls are taught by women, the Court held that the reservation of 50 per cent of the posts in favour of female candidates was justified and it could not be styled as arbitrary or liable to be hit by Article 15 of the Constitution.