The Madras High Court recently made a ruling stating that the use of abusive language or engaging in a heated argument with a superior may not always justify the severe punishment of dismissal from employment. The court reflected on the behavior of a low-level employee and remarked that it would be unrealistic to expect them to respond to a voluntary slap by turning the other cheek, similar to the behavior of Jesus.
The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by S Raja, a former trade union member who was terminated from a tea company owned by Hindustan Unilever (HUL). Raja had allegedly used foul language against his superiors and physically confronted one of the management members by grabbing their shirt collar in 2009. Consequently, his employment was terminated.
Raja approached a labor court, which ordered his reinstatement and payment of fifty percent of his back wages for the period of unemployment. However, a single High Court judge temporarily halted the labor court’s order, deeming it to be mechanically issued. Raja subsequently filed an appeal, which was decided by the present Division Bench.
The Bench, while allowing Raja’s appeal, emphasized the importance of considering any aggravating or extenuating circumstances and an employee’s prior record when imposing punishment. It stated that the use of abusive language may not necessarily warrant dismissal from service, particularly in cases where the behavior is not a recurring occurrence and there is a significant time gap between incidents. The court also emphasized the authority of the labor court to intervene if the punishment is deemed excessively severe.
Regarding the incident that led to Raja’s outburst, the court acknowledged that determining the cause and source of provocation is a matter of fact that cannot be addressed in the current appeal. It remarked that while the employee’s behavior was inappropriate and unbecoming, it is unfair to expect a low-level employee to respond to a voluntary slap by emulating Jesus’ behavior of turning the other cheek. The court clarified that this observation does not imply approval or justification of the employee’s conduct.
Consequently, the court granted Raja’s appeal and partially modified the labor court’s decision. It directed HUL to reinstate Raja without compensating him for lost wages.
