Phulbari Tea Estate v Workmen

• Workers at Phulbari Tea Estate were dismissed following domestic inquiries for various acts of misconduct
• Domestic inquiries were procedurally proper (charge sheet, hearing, opportunity to defend)
• Misconduct was proven through the inquiry process
• Workers challenged not the finding of misconduct but the SEVERITY of the punishment (dismissal)
• They argued the proven misconduct did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal

1. Whether an Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the proportionality of punishment when the domestic inquiry is otherwise valid and misconduct is proved.

• Even when a domestic inquiry is proper and misconduct is proven, the Tribunal RETAINS jurisdiction to examine whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the offence
• If the punishment is grossly disproportionate, the Tribunal can MODIFY it (reduce dismissal to suspension, fine, or warning)
• The employer's discretion on quantum of punishment is not absolute; it is subject to judicial review for proportionality
• Dismissal is the "extreme penalty" and must be reserved for serious misconduct; it cannot be imposed for every proven transgression

The power to impose punishment includes the obligation to be proportionate. An employer's discretion to choose among available punishments is subject to the test of reasonableness. A Tribunal examining an industrial dispute regarding dismissal can substitute a lesser punishment if dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The worker's livelihood cannot be destroyed for minor transgressions.