- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated 27-2- 82 as well as earlier award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated 23-9-81.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the par ties. After perusal of the impugned awards I am not inclined to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. It appears that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 2 and he was chargesheeted on various allegations such as abusing, threatening and beating the of ficer Sri N. K. Jain, etc. After a domestic enquiry was held in which he was given opportunity of hearing his service was ter minated. Aggrieved he raised an industrial dispute but the Labour Court decided against the petitioner, hence this petition. The findings against the petitioner are findings of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. The Labour Court has considered the evidence of the parties in great detail and recorded the findings. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and the allegation regarding the bias against the enquiry of ficer was not proved. The Labour Court has also held that there is no good reasons to interfere with the findings of the en quiry officer that the petitioner committed misconduct. The misconduct are in the opinion serious in nature.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishan v. Union of India & Ors. , AIR 1996 SC 255, and contended that the punishment of dismissal was dis proportionate to the offence. In my opinion whether abusive language can be a good ground for dismissal or not will depend on the entire circumstances and the context in which such language was used e. g. against whom was it used, the exact words used, in what circumstances it was used, etc. There cannot be an absolute proposition that abusive language can never be a ground for dismissal and it will all depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the misconduct found proved against the workman was very serious. The petitioner had on 6-1-77 abused and tried to cause physical injury to the Personnel Officer, and thereafter on the same day he caught hold or the Person nel Officer and beat him with shoes. In my opinion, in this case the punishment of dismissal was called for, otherwise discipline cannot be maintained in the or ganisation.;