Lavya Bhasin and Nandita Yadav
BACKGROUND
This is the case of The Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others v Ajit Mondal & Others.[i] Since the year 1975, Mr. Ajit Mondal (“Employee/Respondent No. 1”) worked as a line mazdoor for Eastern Coalfield Ltd (“Employer”). The Employee missed a significant amount of work in the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, as well as 106 days in 2002. In light of this, the Employer passed an order for ‘penalty of expulsion from service’ and began disciplinary proceedings for the employee’s alleged unlawful absence, but solely with regard to absence in 2002, the concerned proceedings later including absences of years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
The Employee filed a writ petition with the High Court, but the Single Judge rejected it. Nonetheless, the Division Bench accepted the writ petition in an intra-Court appeal on the basis of the penalty’s proportionality. The High Court remitted the case to the disciplinary authorities so that a lesser punishment might be used in place of the dismissal. At the Supreme Court, the Employer appealed the ruling of division bench of the high court.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of dismissal from service, imposed by the employer on an employee who is a poor labour who has superannuated, passe the test of proportionality?
WHAT IS THE TEST OF PROPORTIONALITY?
The doctrine asserts that there must be a reasonable nexus between the desired result and the measures taken to reach that goal. The action taken must not be excessively disproportionate to the consciousness of the court.[ii] In India, Articles 14[iii], 19[iv] and 21[v] have been used to test the anvil of proportionality.
LAW INVOKED
The Supreme Court of India in this case invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to pass a decree or an order necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it.[vi] Article 142 has been invoked in various cases by the Supreme Court before this too, one of the most recent being A G Perarivalan Case,[vii] in which the SC invoked its extraordinary powers to do complete justice to order the release of A G Perarivalan, who was convicted for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Other instances, such as the cleansing of Taj Mahal, ban of sale of alcohol on highways, and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case are too, a result of a constructive application of this Article.
ORDER OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact that there was no complaint in the service record of the line mazdoor from the year 1995-1999. However, he had absented himself from work for some days in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001, and had absented from work for a number of 106 days in 2002.
When the employer appealed against the order passed by the High Court, the SC opined that the court can always test the extreme penalty of dismissal from service on the ‘Test of Proportionality.’ The court held that after issuing chargesheet for unauthorized absence for 106 days during the year 2002, the employer cannot later on take into account the absence during the previous years as antecedents (the year 1999, 2000 and 2001). Further, the court also held that the respondent was a poor line mazdoor and was superannuated more than a decade ago, thus, they exercised their power under Article 142 and upheld the order of the High Court, which substituted dismissal of services with a lesser penalty.
Lastly, the SC also ordered that what all benefits are applicable to a compulsory retired employee, shall be calculated and paid to the respondent no.1 within a period of eight weeks.
ANALYSIS
- Invoking Article 142:
One very common question which may arise in all and not only this instance of invocation of Article 142 is whether the judiciary usurps the doctrine of separation of powers in the name of complete justice. More often than not, the answer to that question is that the Constitution itself has given the power to the SC to invoke Article 142 to ensure justice, equity and equality.
However, it is the onus of the SC to keep in mind that especially while invoking Article 142, the judges need to be dutiful to ensure that the notion of complete justice must be analogous to fairness, and such corrective powers should not be misused at all. That is because, when the power to do complete justice is vested with the SC, the SC, in one sense, stands above law.[viii]
Now, with respect to the present case, my opinion is that the usage of Article 142 here was appropriate, even when the matter was not necessarily that of larger public interest, since it addressed problems related to the unorganised sector and the plight of hundreds of such poor line mazdoors. Some matters are of more complexity and indivisibility than they appear to be, and thus the order of the SC was in the right, since this was a matter which could not be efficiently tackled by any existing law of the land.
- Was the test of Proportionality passed?
The main purpose behind the test of proportionality mainly seeks to balance the act against the penalty for that act. Here, in my opinion, as has also been upheld by the court, an absence of 106 days in one year, as against continuous work done from 1975-1999 should not, and cannot be held as a ground for complete dismissal from service. A lesser penalty, such as issuance of notice, giving warnings, creating a decrement in salary etc. could have been used by the employer to deal with the absence of the line mazdoor.
The doctrine of proportionality just exists to ensure that steam hammers are not used to crack nuts, even if nut crackers are sufficient, which is something that precisely took place in this case. Along with labour law, this case also belongs to the realm of Human Rights Jurisprudence, and thus, the action or the penalty have to be imposed keeping the principle of ‘equity’ intact.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we must keep such orders of the court in mind, since they become important precedents for future occurrences as such that may happen. Positive involvement of the Supreme Court, like in the instant case, is appreciated under the domain of Labour Law to protect the rights of people employed in the unorganised sector. Moreover, actions of the employer must be proportional to the gravity/extent of the default of the employee, so that no unruly exploitation takes place. Supreme Court has again displayed that it is an ardent promoter of justice and equity. This judgement will be significant in providing justice in future cases to a poor employee who may suffer because of exercise of arbitrary power/authority by the employer. Since Labour Law offers a legal framework that supports an individual in order to ultimately create a successful economy, it is utmost essential that that support includes establishment of a framework for communication between the employers, employees and their representatives, so that the Labour Class is not exploited.
[i] The Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others v Ajit Mondal & Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 209.
[ii] Aparna Chandra, ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?’ <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/U-of-OxHRH-J-Proportionality-in-India-1.pdf> accessed 24 March 2023.
[iii] The Constitution of India, art 14.
[iv] The Constitution of India, art 19.
[v] The Constitution of India, art 21.
[vi] The Constitution of India, art 142.
[vii] A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 635.
[viii] Volume VIII, Constituent Assembly Debates.
Leave a Reply