Skip to main content

Mere Abusive Language not a serious misconduct to inflict capital punishment - Madras High Court in Worker vs Hindustan Unilever Limited

Important Points:

Alleged Misconduct:

The Worker barged into the shop floor, where the Production Manager and H.R.Executives were holding a meeting with the operators of Hassia Machine; 
b) he disrupted the meeting and started abusive language against the Executives and the Manager and scolded the Executive by name Sundaram in a filthy language and c) he also intimidated him by holding him by his shift collar, thereby created an unpleasant atmosphere

Long ago, there was prior incident of misconduct.

HC's View and reference to series of judgements:

- Use of abusive language by itself cannot constitute a serious misconduct fit for capital punishment
- The context and the provocations to be borne in mind while determining the punishment
- The Class of the work-men and the abuse to be considered from the level where he came from
   and also the time lapse which can unwound the harm if any caused
- Consider the age of workmen, duration of the dispute  and the feasibility of he getting employed at 48 years

However, while permitting the Writ of the worker partially, the HC struck down the directions of the
lower Court for back wages - permitted only continuity of service and retiral benefits 








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of ...
4 comments
Read more

MCS ACT: Encroachment /usage of Common Area by Flat Owners - Highlights of bye laws and the role of MC/General Body

The Managing Committee has to read the bye laws in harmony and adopt a standard process as approved by the General Body   Almost Every Society has conflicts or even fist fights on usage of common areas, especially the parking, the passage outside the flats and other areas meant for east of movement and common utility. As a Building lay out, and common areas differ accordingly to the size/class of buildings and also the category of flats , it is essential to review the relevant bye laws and formulate a policy with uniform norms and permitting fair use. What is permissible and fair use again depends on the unique size and design of a building, it is imperative to evolve a robust policy post deliberations at a General Body of Members.  Bye Law No 165. Penalties for breaches  Bye Law No 165(a)  The meeting of the General Body of the Society may prescribe penalties for different breaches of the Bye-laws of the Society. The Secretary of the Society, under instruct...
1 comment
Read more

PoSH Act: ICC of the Employer of the Complainant (Victim) is also empowered to conduct enquiry -Path-breaking Ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

 KEY POINTS BY LAWSHASTRA - FULL JUDGEMENT APPENDED BELOW   This path-breaking judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has well enunciated the objectives of the VISHAKA Guidelines and the PoSH Act, while spelling out the jurisdictional aspects of the “Employer” Crystal clear.  Precisely, the jurisdictional challenge by the Appellant in the present case, inter alia relates to whether the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”) against the Appellant who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time.  Key Points for reference   PoSH Act. (extracts) Section 2(a)  “(a) “aggrieved woman” means -  in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or n...
Post a Comment
Read more