The Madras High Court recently held that using abusive language or engaging in a heated argument with a superior does not necessarily warrant the severe punishment of dismissal from employment. The court made this decision while hearing the appeal of S Raja, a former trade union member who was expelled from one of Hindustan Unilever’s (HUL) tea companies.
According to the case, in 2009, Raja allegedly used abusive language against his superiors and even pulled one of the management members by the collar of his shirt. As a result, Raja was terminated from his job. He approached a labour court, which ordered his reinstatement and awarded him 50% of the backwages for the period he remained without a job.
However, a single-judge of the High Court stayed the labour court’s order, stating that it was passed mechanically. Raja then filed an appeal, which was decided by the present Division Bench.
The Bench, while allowing Raja’s appeal, emphasized that when imposing punishment, the authority must consider the circumstances that may mitigate or aggravate the situation, as well as the employee’s past record. The judgment stated that in this case, the incident occurred a decade after Raja had previously received punishment, and it cannot be assumed that he frequently engaged in such misbehaviour. The court concluded that using abusive language may not be a grave offense that justifies the extreme punishment of dismissal.
The Court further stated that the labour court has the power to interfere with the punishment if it is found to be grossly disproportionate. Considering what might have triggered Raja’s outburst, the Court mentioned that the reasons behind his behaviour and the root cause of the provocation cannot be examined in this appeal. It emphasized that low-level employees cannot be expected to tolerate mistreatment without reacting. However, the court clarified that this observation does not mean that it justifies or approves the employee’s misconduct.
Consequently, the Court allowed Raja’s appeal and partially modified the labour court’s order. It directed HUL to reinstate Raja but stated that he would not receive his back wages.
Written by- MD Arib khalique , College- Galgotia university , Semester-4th intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments