- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition No. 21316 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 28153 of 1996 have challenged the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Agra, dated 29. 2. 96and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21316 of 1996 is a Government company and the respondent No. 3 was an employee in the said concern. He was charge-sheeted on 27. 1. 84. True copy of the charge-sheet is annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against him was that on 26. 4. 94 he went to the canteen at 8. 30 AM. and did not return for work till 9. 45 A. M. When he was called for work by Sri A. K. Srivastava, Assistant Engineer he said when he was told by the engineers to come out and do his work, he went to the lathe machine and picked up an iron rod and stood in the office and told the officers that THE same day at 3. 20 P. M. when Sri A. K. Srivastava, Assistant Engineer was sit ting in his office, the petitioner came there and started beating him with steel rod which resulted in injuries on his hand and fingers. True copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE respondent gave his reply in charge-sheet which was found un satisfactory and then an enquiry was held in which full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 3 and thereafter the dismissal order dated 9. 11. 84 was passed. Since a dispute regarding bonus was pending before Industrial Tribunal, Agra, the petitioner applied for approval under Section 6e (2) (a) which was granted by order dated 5. 1. 95 Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 then raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Tribunal, The Industrial Tribunal held that domestic enquiry was fair and proper vide order dated 24. 11. 92 and thereafter the Tribunal gave the award dated 29. 2. 96 by which the respondent No. 3 was reinstated without payment of back wages. This award has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 21316 of 1996 by the petitioner while the workman concerned has challenged the award claiming that he should have been granted back wages also apart from reinstatement;
(3.) IN my opinion, the allegations against the respondent workman, which have been found to be correct by the en quiry officer (whose finding has not been disturbed by the Tribunal), are so serious that the punishment of dismissal was the only correct punishment arid hence the Tribunal was wrong in interfering with the same. Sri K. P. Agarwal appearing for the respondent workman has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramakant Misra v. State of U. P, A. I. R. 1982, SC, 1552 and has contended that merely abusing a superior or giving him threats is not a mis conduct. I can not agree with this conten tion. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case must be confined to the facts of that particular case and it can not be said to have laid clown a universal legal proposition that giving threats or abuses to a superior can in no circumstances be regarded as a misconduct. It all depends on the facts of each case and the Tribunal had to see the circumstances e. g. what was the exact words used while giving the abuse or threat, in what circumstances the same was done, to whom the threat or abuse givenand when and where, etc. vide Ram Kishan v. Union of India, 1995 (6) S. C. C. 157 para 11.;