Nurturing discipline

At any workplace, appropriate dialogue is key to communication. Foul, filthy, or rude language can disrupt peaceful working conditions, apart from damaging goodwill. Courts, in various rulings, have emphasised the importance of discipline.

In ‘Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. NB Narwade’ (2005), the Supreme Court stated that the use of abusive language against a superior officer—twice, in the presence of subordinates—cannot be termed a minor indiscipline deserving lesser punishment, in the absence of any extenuating factors. The Court noted that the language used by the workman was such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society.

In ‘Hombe Gowda Educational Trust vs. State of Karnataka’ (2005), the Supreme Court observed that the judiciary has evolved from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions is to seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of workmen was sought to be protected with the object of fast industrial growth of country. The Court emphasised that, in several cases, workplace discipline has suffered setbacks. It opined that in light of the country’s changing economic policy, it is no longer appropriate to allow employees to breach discipline with impunity. According to the Supreme Court, India is governed by the rule of law, and all actions must, therefore, be taken in accordance with the law. The Court also stated that, as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court demonstrates that tribunals should not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by employers unless a suitable case is made out therefor.

In ‘UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Subhash Chandra’ (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that in cases where a workman abused and threatened to assault a superior, it constituted a serious charge of misconduct. Under such circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal from service when the charge was proven. The Court held that the punishment awarded was not "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the proven charge. The Labour Court’s discretion, in this case, was found to be capricious and arbitrary.

In 2023, the Madras High Court, in the case of S. Raja Vs. Hindustan Unilever, observed that in the particular case, the use of abusive language was not of such a serious nature as to warrant the “capital punishment” of dismissal from service. Each case depends on its facts and circumstances. Since precaution is better than cure, foul language and bad behaviour are generally categorised as grave misconduct in organisations. Standing orders of various entities also contain clauses specifying that abusing a superior officer using vulgar, filthy language, immoderate language, or any such dialogue within an organisation is punishable by dismissal. In fact, some organisations further elaborate by including stipulations such as writing letters, emails, messages, etc., containing offensive remarks that are incompatible with company practices. A well-drafted code of conduct with appropriate clauses serves as a way to train employees, define acceptable behaviours, and act as a reminder for maintaining discipline. However, these instances are more with respect to disciplinary action and to maintain harmony of an organisation and not with respect to criminal charges.

Additionally, factors like whether the employee was provoked or the gravity of the misconduct may be considered when taking action. Foul language directed at a superior officer or repeated instances of such behaviour are generally not tolerated. In fact, filthy, inappropriate language used against a woman may also fall within the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The ultimate goal of any rules, regulations, or code of conduct is to curb unethical behaviour. Sometimes, a lack of knowledge or other circumstances—such as tumultuous personal life, inadequate education, or health issues—may contribute to misconduct. Therefore, in addition to gender-sensitisation programs, organisations may include programs on ethical behaviour, appropriate conduct, and skill-building. A peaceful environment is a key requirement for any organisation, and lack of training, rather than bad intent, is often the reason for disharmony. Such groundings are also essential for the country’s aim to become the human resource capital of the world.

The writer is a practising Advocate in Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi. Views expressed are personal