‘Slapping superior is grave misconduct’: HC set aside Tribunal order, restored termination of employee for slapping the superior
Bombay HC upheld HPCL workman termination for slapping supervisor, deeming it grave misconduct. CGIT imposed lesser punishment, but HC agreed with HPCL, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault for disciplinary enforcement.
The Bombay High Court ( HC) upheld a 2001 termination of a Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) workman for slapping a supervisor and said it was “startled’’ that the industrial tribunal in 2012 found it not to be serious enough to merit his sacking.
Justice Sandeep Marne criticized the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) directing the workman’s reinstatement with 20 percent back wages and seniority. The CGIT has instead awarded a punishment of withholding one increment.
The CGIT considered the workman’s act ‘not too serious to inflict the punishment of termination’ as it did not cause any bodily injury.
Terming the reasoning as “shocking” and “astounding,” Justice Marne said that such leniency could encourage similar acts by other employees.
The tribunal had said the workman had “merely’’ 28 years ago, in 1996, slapped the cheek of the officer and didn’t intend to inflict any physical injury. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) said the punishment imposed on the worker had shocked its conscience. Justice Sandeep Marne held, “These findings recorded by the Presiding Officer are astounding’’ and also “shocking” and unsustainable.
The HC, however, agreeing with the 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, 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.’’ The other cheek was not turned. Rathod was placed under suspension the next day and, after 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 worker, claiming “discrimination”, sought full-back wages. The HC found no merit in his plea.
Dismissing the workman’s petition, the HC ruled. “Slapping his superior by the workman is one of the gravest forms of misconduct, which ought to be visited with a penalty of termination.’’
The HC said in an In Domestic Enquiry, the “charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.’’ The HC ruled that the CGIT “ought to have been mindful of the fact that he was dealing with the issue of proportionality of penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings, where the purpose of imposition of penalty is to enforce discipline amongst the staff.’’ The Court said if not dealt with, it can encourage similar acts by others.
Read more HR news like this on PropleManager.co.in
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here
- Withdraw PF from ATMs Starting 2025: Labour Ministry - December 12, 2024
- Oral Complaints Cannot Replace Written Complaints Under PoSH Act: Kerala High Court - December 12, 2024
- Bengaluru Woman Rejects Job Offer Due to CEO’s Behavior During Interview - December 10, 2024
