Bombay High Court Upholds Termination Of HPCL Workman Who Slapped Supervisor, Says Astounding That CGIT Didn't Find It Serious

Observing that assault on a superior is a grave form of misconduct warranting termination to maintain discipline in the workplace, the Bombay High Court on Friday set aside the reinstatement of a Hindustan Petroleum workman who was terminated after he slapped his supervisor.

Justice Sandeep V Marne sharply criticized the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's (CGIT) decision to reinstate the workman with 20 percent back wages and seniority and instead award a punishment of withholding of one increment.

“CGIT has arrived at a conclusion that the acts of insubordination and assault are not serious enough to inflict punishment of termination. The view taken by CGIT that act of assault on co-employee is not serious is startling. Commission of assault on a co-employee is the gravest form of misconduct which a workman can commit. Far from penalty shocking my conscious, actually the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of CGIT are shocking”, the court stated.

The Presiding Officer of CGIT considered the act of the workman 'not too serious to inflict the punishment of termination' as it did not cause any bodily injury. The court found the CGIT's reasoning “shocking” and “astounding” and emphasized that such leniency could encourage similar acts by other employees.

“The finding recorded by the Presiding Officer of CGIT that only when bodily injury is suffered by person, who is assaulted, the penalty of discharge/termination can be imposed is totally unsustainable…if an employee slapping his superior in front of others is retained in service, the same would encourage similar acts by others. Slapping his superior by the workman is one of the gravest forms of misconduct, which ought to be visited with penalty of discharge/termination.”

The court was dealing with cross writ petitions filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and its employee, Mavji Jethalal Rathod, challenging an award of the CGIT on September 27, 2012.

Rathod, a Bulk Operator at HPCL, was assigned the task of recording temperature of products at the TTL Gantry on July 23, 1996. HPCL asserted that maintaining accurate temperature records is crucial for determining product quantity during loading and unloading. Allegedly, Rathod recorded an incorrect temperature of 260°C for a tank truck, which the supervisor corrected to 270°C. Rathod, refusing to change it back, assaulted the supervisor, leading to his suspension and subsequent disciplinary action.

Rathod was accused of insubordination, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour and use of abusive language, threatening, intimidating, etc as well as slapping his supervisor. A domestic inquiry found him guilty, resulting in his dismissal from service. The disciplinary decision was upheld on appeal. The matter came to be referred to CGIT when conciliation proceedings failed.

CGIT held that the enquiry was not fair or proper and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. Instead of challenging this, HPCL proved the misconduct before the CGIT by examining the supervisor who was allegedly assaulted by the Workman, the shift in-charge, and the operations manager. All the three witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the Workman. The Workman also examined himself before the Tribunal and was subjected to cross examination. CGIT held the charge to be proven based on the evidence.

The CGIT, however, found the punishment of termination disproportionate and instead directed the corporation to withhold one increment as punishment. CGIT thus directed the reinstatement of the workman with 20% back wages. HPCL filed a writ petition challenging this decision to set aside termination, while Rathod filed another writ petition seeking full back wages and reinstatement.

The court rejected the workman's argument that separate charges were required to be framed before presenting oral evidence, asserting that once the domestic inquiry's fairness is questioned or its findings deemed biased, the employer has the right to present evidence before the Labor/Industrial Court. This procedure does not require fresh charges against the workman but rather aims to prove the charges established in the prior inquiry, the court stated.

The court also dismissed allegations about the workman's victimization or the time lapse between termination and the CGIT proceedings. The delay in CGIT's decision does not diminish the evidence provided by HPCL, which effectively proved the charges of threatening and assault, the court held. It concluded that sufficient evidence existed to establish Rathod's guilt, dismissing claims of procedural irregularities and victimization raised by Rathod.

Ultimately, the court set aside the CGIT's award, ruling in favour of HPCL and dismissing Rathod's petition.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 751 of 2013

Case Title – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod