ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2001 in ID.No.181/1990 and award dated 17.12.2002 in ID.No.56/2002. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Helper and thereafter he was promoted as Laboratory Assistant. He was discharged from service on 17.7.1990. Petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 19th February 2001 held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter on merit, the Industrial Tribunal held that the charge is proved and dismissed the dispute. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the enquiry is fair and proper. In this regard, she submitted that the petitioner was kept under suspension on the allegation that he had used abusive language against the Presenting Officer and he was not paid the subsistence allowance. She submitted that, it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to claim the subsistence allowance. She further submitted that, if the subsistence allowance is not paid, then the enquiry gets vitiated. In this regard, she relied on a judgment in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1416 . By referring to the said judgment, she further submitted that, non-payment of subsistence allowance violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She further submitted that; the fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the basic human rights are not surrendered by the employee. The provision for payment of subsistence allowance made in the Service Rules only ensures non-violation of the right to life of the employee. Referring to the said judgment, she further submitted that, non-payment of subsistence allowance vitiates the entire enquiry. She submitted that, substantive provisions are required to be complied. If the substantive provisions are not complied, the enquiry proceedings get vitiated. In this regard, she relied on a judgment in the matter of State Bank of Patialand Vs. S.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 . By referring to the said judgment, it is submitted that the compliance of the substantive provisions is mandatory and non-compliance would prejudice the interest of workman. 4. On merit, she further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner used abusive language, which fact is denied by the petitioner. S.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 . By referring to the said judgment, it is submitted that the compliance of the substantive provisions is mandatory and non-compliance would prejudice the interest of workman. 4. On merit, she further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner used abusive language, which fact is denied by the petitioner. The witness examined by the Management is one Dr.Pruthvish, who is none other than the Presenting Officer in another enquiry and two other doctors, who are interested witnesses have supported the case of the Management. There is no independent evidence produced by the Management nor there is any complaint filed against the petitioner and there is no past history alleged against the petitioner and further submitted that, though the charge is that the petitioner used abusive language under the influence of alcohol, however, the Enquiry Officer himself has found that the consumption of alcohol is not proved. When the part of the charge is not proved, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the dispute. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Management submitted that, the enquiry will not get vitiated on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance. He submitted that, this issue has been decided by the Apex Court in the judgment in the matter of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 . Referring to the said judgment, he further submitted that, unless the petitioner proves that, non-payment of subsistence allowance has prejudiced his case, the enquiry will not get vitiated only on the ground of non payment of subsistence allowance. In this regard, he relied on para-11 of the said judgment. He also relied on an unreported judgment in Writ Appeal No.397/1988 and connected matter and submitted that this Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court has held that, non-payment of subsistence allowance co-instante would render domestic enquiry invalid is not accepted. He also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134 , and submitted that, the order of dismissal of a workman on the charge of use of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charge alleged against him. He submitted that, use of abusive language is indiscipline and does not call for lesser punishment. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134 , and submitted that, the order of dismissal of a workman on the charge of use of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charge alleged against him. He submitted that, use of abusive language is indiscipline and does not call for lesser punishment. In this regard, he also relied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court and submitted that, Dr.Pruthvish was the Presenting Officer in another enquiry proceedings. The petitioner had gone to the house of Dr.Pruthvish and used abusive language against him and this is evident from the show cause notice produced at Annexure-A. He also submitted that, in order to prove the said charge, the Management has examined two other doctors, who are neighbours of Dr.Pruthvish, who have supported the case of the Management. He further submitted that, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses. The entire evidence corroborated the charge alleged against the petitioner. 6. Whether on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the enquiry gets vitiated? 7. No doubt, the fundamental right includes the Right to Life and basic human rights are not surrendered by an employee merely on the allegation of misconduct. It cannot be disputed that, the employer has a duty to pay the subsistence allowance under the Rules. However, in this case, the respondent - Management is governed by the Rules, which do not provide for payment of subsistence allowance. Even assuming that, the Management is under obligation to pay the subsistence allowance to the employees, non-payment of subsistence allowance that itself may not vitiate the enquiry proceedings, unless a case is made out by the petitioner that, on account of non-payment of the subsistence allowance, it has prejudiced his case before the Enquiry Officer, such as, if the petitioner is unable to participate in the enquiry proceedings for want of subsistence allowance or he is not able to effectively represent his case for want of subsistence allowance or he has certain difficulties in prosecuting his matter due to the financial hardship. In this case, there is no evidence to show, as to how the non-payment of subsistence allowance has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. No doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra). In this case, there is no evidence to show, as to how the non-payment of subsistence allowance has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. No doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra). In the said case, the employee had made an application seeking adjournment on medical ground and he had also produced medical certificate and he had also pleaded that, he cannot travel from his home town to the enquiry place as he had no means to travel and he has no money. On the ground of ill-health, the Apex Court has considered that the payment of subsistence allowance is also one of the requirements of right to life and it is the fundamental right and found that the proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice as the employee could not attend the enquiry proceedings for want of money. But the case on hand does not reveal such facts. In this case, the petitioner nowhere pleads that his case was prejudiced on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. I find that the decision relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Apex Court in the matter of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. (Supra) has observed at para-11 that: “11. So far as the effect of not paying the subsistence allowance is concerned, before the authorities no stand was taken by the respondent No.1-employee that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the proceedings, or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him. He did not plead or substantiate also that the non-payment was either deliberate or to spite him. It is ultimately a question of prejudice. Unless prejudice is shown and established, mere nonpayment of subsistence allowance cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every case. It has to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance. Unless that is done, it cannot be held as an absolute position in law that non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to denial of opportunity and vitiates departmental proceedings.” The Apex Court relied on another judgment reported in 2004(1) SCC 281. Unless that is done, it cannot be held as an absolute position in law that non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to denial of opportunity and vitiates departmental proceedings.” The Apex Court relied on another judgment reported in 2004(1) SCC 281. In the light of the above decision, in this case, the petitioner having not established any prejudice on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, it cannot be held that the enquiry is vitiated only on the said ground. 8. Insofar as charge is concerned, once the enquiry is held as fair and proper, the scope of interference by the Labour Court is limited on the ground of victimization or unfair labour practice or on the ground of perverse finding. There is no material to show victimization, no evidence was led before the Labour Court. Insofar as the perversity of the findings is concerned, the Labour Court has held that, three witnesses have been examined and all the 3 witnesses are doctors. Dr.Pruthvish has alleged that the petitioner used abusive language by going over to his house and threatening. This is supported by the neighbours, who are two doctors, who have been examined in the enquiry. Both the doctors have supported the case of the Management. These witnesses, though cross-examined, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination, no other evidence is led by the petitioner. Once the enquiry is held as fair and proper and also no other evidence having been led by the petitioner before the Labour Court, it cannot be found that the findings are perverse. 9. Insofar as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, the evidence clearly proves that the petitioner had used abusive language against the Presenting Officer in another enquiry proceedings. The Doctor has spoken that the petitioner had gone to his house and threatened him and used abusive language and in this regard, a show cause notice was issued as per Annexure-A. By looking into the show cause notice, it reveals that the petitioner has used abusive language. Merely because the use of abusive language under the influence of alcohol is not proved, it does not mean that the charge of use of abusive language is also not proved. The Enquiry Officer no doubt has held that the consumption of alcohol is not proved. Merely because the use of abusive language under the influence of alcohol is not proved, it does not mean that the charge of use of abusive language is also not proved. The Enquiry Officer no doubt has held that the consumption of alcohol is not proved. Even otherwise, if the said part of the charge is not proved, the person, who is not under the influence of alcohol, who is conscious about his acts and behaviour and if he uses abusive language, it is more serious. In my opinion, once the use of abusive language is proved, the Apex Court in the matter of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. (supra) has observed that, use of abusive language is indiscipline as the language used by the petitioner is filthy and the use of such abusive language in the work place against another employee cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer in the presence of his subordinates or in the presence of other people is a serious misconduct and does not attract the lesser punishment. Once the charge is abusive language is proved, that too against the superior and particularly Doctors working in hospital, it is not only indiscipline behaviour on the part of the employee, but also unbecoming of an employee and particularly in the hospital where every employee is required to be sympathetic, pleasant and have to show love and care to the patients in distress. In such circumstances, hospitals cannot be treated on par with the factories or other workplace, the employees of the hospital have to be treated as class by themselves. In my opinion, the charge having been proved and the enquiry being held as fair and proper and the gravity of charge does not attract the lesser punishment, I find that there is no justification to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.