Honble VERMA, J. – Hindustan Zinc Mazdoor Union, Debari, District Udaipur through its General Secretary had taken up the case of its active members/Office bearers Sarva Shri P.K. Joshi, S.L. Tak and B.K. Mishra who were removed from service and whose cause was taken up by the Union before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its order dated 19.3.1984 had held the enquiry to be fair and videits award dated 8.1.1986 had maintained the order of removal of the workmen P.K. Joshi and S.L. Tak but had interferred with the termination of services of B.K. Mishra. The punishment inflicted on B.K. Mishra was reduced from dismissal to stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved the petitioner Union has filed the present writ petition. (2) As per the facts stated, a first information report was lodged in the police station by the management in regard to an incident against 7 persons i.e. P.K. Joshi, S.L. Tak, B.K. Mishra and 4 others by Shri S. Solanki, Works Manager stating thereinthat on 17.7.1981 while he was going to the factory for attending his duties his car was stopped by a group of persons including 7 persons, they forcibly opened the door of the car and P.K. Joshi and S.L. Tak put their hands on his body and tried to drag him out of the car by catching the collar of his shirt and used all abusive and derogatory language. There were slogans of Murdabad- Murdabad. In the mean-time number of persons had gathered and he was rescued. It is stated that these very persons had chased him upto the administrative block and had entered into his office. On the report, a copy of which is attached as Annex. 5, a first information was registered. All the three persons were charge/sheeted for violating the Standing Orders of the Factory by Shri S. Solanki himself who was the complainant and overall incharge of the Factory. The allegations levelled against all the three persons out of 7 persons were that they were absent from their duty after 8 A.M. and all the 7 persons were seen loitering without any work and had way laid Shri Solanki. The charge-sheets are attached as Annexs. 3 and 4. It is admitted that all the three charge-sheets were identical in nature. (3). The charge-sheets are attached as Annexs. 3 and 4. It is admitted that all the three charge-sheets were identical in nature. (3). A reply is said to have been submitted by the workmen and the charges were denied and a counter story was put up by the workmen. Number of defences were taken and it was stated by the workmen that as a matter of fact no such incident had occurred at all. It was submitted that whole of the factory workers were agitating against the unwarranted action of the management against some oftheir co-employees and for discussing this matter, the office bearer of the Union including concerned workers were invited by Shri Solanki in his office and during the discussion there were some heated arguments and the team of workers who had gone for discussion had to return back in agitated mood as Shri Solanki had insulted the workers. A domestic enquiry was held, number of witnesses were exa-mied on behalf of both the sides. Shri Solanki himself was also examined alongwith Sarva Shri K.K. Sharma, K.D. Kurrey and some others. On behalf of the workers the statements of Sarva Shri P.K. Joshi, B.K. Mishra, S.L. Tak were recorded. However, the Enquiry Officer came to a finding that Sarva Shri P.K. Joshi, B.K. Mishra and S.L. Tak were guilty of leaving the place of duty for 15 minutes or half an hour and wereguilty of committing misconduct with Shri Solanki and on such enquiry report all the three persons were dismissed from service. The Labour Court vide its impugned order had upheld the validity of the enquiry and has dismissed the reference holding that the misconduct stood proved. (4). Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed against the order/award of the Labour Court. (5). On the out-set, the validity of the domestic enquiry has been challenged on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had not allowed a co-worker of the choice of te workmen for rendering assistance in the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer. (4). Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed against the order/award of the Labour Court. (5). On the out-set, the validity of the domestic enquiry has been challenged on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had not allowed a co-worker of the choice of te workmen for rendering assistance in the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer. It is true that the delinquent workers had applied to the authorities for renderingthem assistance in the enquiry through a co-worker who was an employee of the management but the same was refused by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that even though the services of the co-worker being sought who belongs to the establishment of the management but because of the reason that he is not working in the same premises, no help can be rendered through that co- worker. The assis- tance was refused on the ground that if the management has got many establishment, each establishment is a separate establishment, may be they are interlinked but still the assistance under the Standing Orders through a co-worker can be given only if such a co-worker is an employee of the same establishment i.e. the same premises to which the delinquent worker belongs to. (6). There is force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the co-workers were entitled to the assistance of another co-worker and it did not make any difference if such an co-worker was working in another part of the estab-lishment of the management. The rejection of the request by the Enquiry Officer/Management in this regard was not justified. The Standing Orders have been framed, keeping in view the compliance of the principles of natural justice, and if the co-worker whose assistance is being sought belongs to the establishment of the management, the assistance cannot be refused on the ground that he does not work in the same premises/establishment where the incident had occurred or the co-worker whose assistance was sought is working in another part of the establishment of the same management. This finding of the Labour Court cannot be upheld. (7). This finding of the Labour Court cannot be upheld. (7). Despite the fact that non-providing the assistance of the co- worker in the circumstances as mentioned above was violative of the principles of natural justiceand the statutory provisions contained in the Standing Orders, but still in the present case the workers had sought alternative assistance through a co-worker and that alternative assistance once had been given, the witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, no grievance can be made out that the workers were prejudiced. Therefore, despite the finding that non-providing the assistance through aco-worker as per the desire of the workman, no benefit can be derived by the workers and the enquiry as such cannot be vitiated in the present circumstances for the reason that the workers did avail the opportunity of assistance of a other co-worker. (8). Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order/award of the Labour Courtis to be quashed on the ground that the action of the management was discriminatory and the Labour Courts finding on this aspect was not proper. It is stated that there was victimisation and unfair labour practice was involved in the present case and as such the award and the order of dismissal are likely to be set aside. It is further submitted that the punishment awarded is too harsh. (9). On the point of discrimination, it is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, that in the F.I.R. dated 17.7.1981, got recorded by Shri Solanki against as many as 7 persons including the 3 concerned workmen, every one had been blamed but 4 persons have been let off by the management whereas only 3 persons have been proceeded with by issuing the charge-sheets and holding the enquiry.The allegations in the F.I.R. Annex. 5 were identical. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that all the 7 persons including the charge-sheeted workmen have been discharged by the criminal court i.e. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur vide Annex. 9 dated 15.3.1993, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition, wherein the Magistrate has held that despite havinggiven opportunity for more than 10 years, the prosecution has not produced a single witness and, therefore, there was no option left with the Judicial Magistrate but to discharge all the 7 accused persons. 9 dated 15.3.1993, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition, wherein the Magistrate has held that despite havinggiven opportunity for more than 10 years, the prosecution has not produced a single witness and, therefore, there was no option left with the Judicial Magistrate but to discharge all the 7 accused persons. The counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of fact, for the reason that nothing had happened and none of the prosecution witnesses could have faced the expert cross-examination in the criminal courtand, therefore, they had decided not to appear in the criminal court at all and after 10 years of harassment the 7 workers were discharged by the criminal court. According to the petitioner, this action of the management was nothing but a victimisation amounting to unfair labour practice. (10). The Labour Court vide its award Annex. 2 had set aside the dismissal or- der of Shri B.K. Mishra and reinstated him in service with stoppage of 4 annual grade inrements with cumulative effect. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that in any case the allegations/charge-sheet against Shri P.K. Joshi, Shri S.L. Tak and Shri B.K. Mishra were identical, word for word, and the evidence led against all the 3 persons was same in the joint enquiry. If Shri B.K. Mishra can be punished with a lesser punishment then the other co-worker i.e. P.K. Joshi and S.L. Tak should also be awarded the lesser punishment. The counsel also argues that the punishment imposed is too harsh. It is admitted that the workers were the office bearersof the Union and there were pending problems which required discussions with the management. It is stated that there was no occasion for any of the workers for resorting to such an action. It is also averred that the punishing authority himself was the complainant and had himself issued the charge-sheets under his signatures i.e. Shri S. Solanki himself was the complainant as well as the prosecutor and,therefore, there is ample bias as well. (11). On the point of discrimination the counsel relies on Sengara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), wherein number of police officers of Punjab were proceeded with for participating in the agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing the discipline in the Punjab Police Force and number of criminal Prose-cutions were filed and number of police officers were dismissed. (11). On the point of discrimination the counsel relies on Sengara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), wherein number of police officers of Punjab were proceeded with for participating in the agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing the discipline in the Punjab Police Force and number of criminal Prose-cutions were filed and number of police officers were dismissed. Number of cases filed against number of persons were withdrawn, overlooked and their actions were condoned and reinstated. It was held by the Apex Court that there was no justification in treating the petitioner differently without pointing out how they were guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in their case washigher than compared to those who were reinstated. The action was held to be arbitrary. (12). In a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Narendra Kumar Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), it was held that the discrimination had taken its roots when some of those who preferred appeals in accordance withthe directions of the Apex Court and the appeals were allowed partly or fully and all those police employees who were dismissed on account of their participation in the police agitation constitute a class in itself. It was held that it will be unfortunate that some of those employees are reinstated and some stand deprived of the reinstatement simply because they could not approach the Supreme Court or fileappeals as directed by their Lordships. The orders of removal from service were set aside by this Court on the point of discrimination. (13). On the submission that the punishment imposed is too harsh, the counsel, for the petitioner relies on Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors. (3), wherein the Supreme Court had held that when abusive language is used by any-body against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated, and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of the abusive language. No straight jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. No straight jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the natureof the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated and, therefore, the Honble Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the case had held that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charge imputed to the delinquent constable. The order of dismissal was set aside and rather imposition of stoppage of two grade increme-nts with cumulative effect was awarded. (14). The counsel also relies on Shri S.K. Giri vs. Home Secretary, Ministery of Home Affairs & Ors. (4), a case of a Security Guard who was found absent from his duty for a short while he was punished with severe disproportionate punishment, the Supreme Court held that the punishment was too harsh in the circumstances of that case and, therefore, was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. (15). The counsel also relies on Ex. Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (5), wherein it was held that sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. (16). On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents relies on 1997 Suppl. S.W. (6) and 1997 Suppl. W.N. 1911 (7) on the proposition that in case of proved misconduct no interference is called for and it is the progative of the management to impose any punishment. (17). After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I amof the opinion that it is a case where the Labour Court ought to have interfered in the matter of awarding punishment. It is admitted fact that a first information report was recorded against as many as 7 persons including the 3 charge- sheeted persons. It is also admitted that none of other 4 persons were charge-sheeted. There is no plausible explanation put forward by the management for excludingthe other four workers. It is admitted fact that a first information report was recorded against as many as 7 persons including the 3 charge- sheeted persons. It is also admitted that none of other 4 persons were charge-sheeted. There is no plausible explanation put forward by the management for excludingthe other four workers. It is also admitted fact that all the 7 persons including the 3 charge-sheeted workmen were put up for trial for criminal offences and for long 10 years, none of the prosecution witnesses of the management appeared before the criminal court with the result that after 10 years of facing criminal trial all the 7 workers were discharged for want of evidence. Had the respondent managementbeen really concerned about the allegations which were also of criminal nature, the management would have and should have supported the same in the criminal court but for long 10 years, none of the management witnesses appeared before the criminal court. The mens rea is clear. It is also admitted fact that the complainant Shri Solanki was himself the punishing authority and he himself had charge-sheeted the 3 workmen. As per the charge-sheets attached with the writ petition all the charge- sheets are verbatim the same. The evidence is also same but still one Shri B.K. Mishra has been awarded a lesser punishment by the labour Court for which the Labour Court was competent to impose such lesser punishment. If 3 persons are tried together on the word to word identical charge-sheets and identi-cal evidence, one is being given the lesser punishment by the Labour Court, whereas the punishment in regard to the others is not being interferred with. The reason given by the Labour Court goes counter to the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. Shri B.K. Mishra has been equally involved as Shri Joshi and Shri Tak which is apparent from the bare reading of the charge-sheet still Shri Mishra is beinglet off with lesser punishment when all the 3 are equally placed. In whole of the evidence on the allegation that some abusive language was used, it has not been mentioned as to what was the nature of that abusive language. It is also a fact that the attendance register was not produced to show that the concerned workers were absent for a short time from their duties. In whole of the evidence on the allegation that some abusive language was used, it has not been mentioned as to what was the nature of that abusive language. It is also a fact that the attendance register was not produced to show that the concerned workers were absent for a short time from their duties. The contention of the counsel forthe petitioner that had the attendance register been produced, it would have revealed that all the 3 persons would have been present at the place of their duties as no absence had been marked and if the management would have produced the record called for, the finding could have been different. The allegation of bias cannot be ruled out. At the last stage of the enquiry, the Managing Director actingunder the Standing Orders, had authorised some other Manager to take action against the delinquent workers when the complainant himself had already charge-sheeted the workers it cannot be said that there was no ample bias on the part of the punishing authority. The competent punishing authority was the Works Manager Shri Solanki who was also the complainant as well as the person who hadcharge-sheeted the workers under his own signatures and had appeared in the enquiry as P.W. and even had got the first information report recorded at the police station. (18). After hearing the arguments of the parties, I am of this view that not only a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the three charge-sheeted persons but also the punishment imposed is too harsh specially when there are counter allegations of the delinquent workers that they were called in the office of Shri Solanki for discussion over the fate of the workman and there were heated arguments during the discussion. Under these circumstances it is a fit case where the same punishment be awarded to Shri P.K. Joshi and Shri S.L. Tak as has been awarded to Shri B.K. Mishra by the Labour Court as such. (19). For the reasons mentioned above, it shall be appropriate if all the 3 charge-sheeted workmen who were charge-sheeted on identical facts and identical allegations which charge-sheets are verbatim similar should be awarded thesame punishment as awarded to one Shri B.K. Mishra. For the reasons given above the award of the Labour Court so far as it relates to Shri P.K. Joshi and Shri S.L. Tak is set aside. For the reasons given above the award of the Labour Court so far as it relates to Shri P.K. Joshi and Shri S.L. Tak is set aside. Instead of remanding the case back to the Labour Court for awarding the same punishment to the remaining two persons as that of Shri B.K. Mishra, it shall be appropriate if an order is passed in the present case that Shri P. K. Joshiand Shri S.L. Tak shall also suffer the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and would be treated alike with that of Shri B.K. Mishra, who was charge- sheeted on similar and identical grounds. (20). The writ petition is partly allowed as per the discussion above. No orders as to costs. _