Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 was employed as workman by the respondent No. 1. He was charge sheeted on 28th January, 1982. Similar charge sheets were also served on four other persons by the respondent No. 1. A joint domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner and all the four incumbents. After the conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner No. 2 was punished with dismissal from service. The order of dismissal was also passed in the case of R.K. Pandey and Kanhaiyalal but two other persons namely Arjun Lal Khatik and K.L. Masani were not dismissed from service. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner No. 1 resulting in reference by the Government of Rajasthan. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties found that the domestic enquiry was in accordance with law and held the petitioner guilty of charges. Thereafter the Labour Court heard the parties on the question of quantum of punishment. The Labour Court after hearing the parties upheld the order of dismissal of the petitioner No. 2, and confirmed the same. However the Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner No. 2 by its award dated 5th September, 1983. This writ petition has been filed against this award.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the persons similarly situated has not been afforded a similar treatment. The 1d. counsel for the petitioner submits that there was same evidence against Arjun Lal Khatik and K.L. Masani but they have not been awarded the punishment of removal from service, whereas the petitioner has been removed from service. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. The Judge Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan and Ors. 1973 WLN 686, and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh : (1972)ILLJ180SC . The submission of the learned counsel is not sustainable. The Labour Court after scrutinising the evidence of all the persons has found that Rajendra Kumar misbehaved and used filthy language and burnt the effigy of the management. As against this Arjun Lal Khatik and K.L. Masani did not act in a manner these persons had acted. The finding of the Labour Court is that action of these two namely Rajendra Kumar Pandey, and Kanhaiyalal were of worse kind and therefore the Labour Court awarded them punishment of removal from service. In view of the finding recorded by the Judge Labour Court, which does not appear to be perverse, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. Both the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help the petitioner in support of his contention. So far as the first case of RSRTC v. The Industrial Tribunal 1973 WLN 686 is concerned, in that case the Tribunal recorded the finding that charge of illegal strike was against all the six persons along with several other workmen who had gone on strike but these six persons alone has been picked for removal from service, this cannot be done. Thus this case is wholly distinguishable on facts.
3. Likewise in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh : (1972)ILLJ180SC also does not help the petitioner, it is also distinguishable on facts.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that using of filthy language does not appear to be as a serious offence so as to warrant dismissal from service. In this connection the learned counsel cited the case of Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. 1984 (2) SLR 5. In this case the language was used for the co-worker only and that was not found to be so serious so as to warrant dismissal of the workman. But here situation is entirely different. Petitioner used filthy language and burnt the effigy of the management. Such kind of action is wholly unwarranted and cannot be lightly taken. Therefore the Labour Court has rightly awarded the punishment of dismissal from service and it is not excessive. Thus I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in awarding this punishment.
5. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the past record of the petitioner according to the Standing Order 13(6) was not taken into consideration. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the Management of Mahalakshmi Textile Mills v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai and Ors. : (1963)IILLJ58Mad . So far as the act of the petitioner is concerned, itself amounted to the grave deliquency and even if past record has not been taken into consideration then too this individual act is so serious that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not disproportionate. The past record could have been taken into consideration if the act of the petitioner was not serious but in view of the fact that the act was so serious therefore even if the Tribunal has not recorded the finding regarding the past record of the petitioner, I do not think that the Tribunal has committed such a grave illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court. In the case cited supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner the delinquency was of not serious nature, it was only regarding habitual absence of the workman. Therefore, it was thought that the past record is relevant so as to find out whether the workman was also absented from job previously or not. In the present case the deliquency of the petitioner is of such a serious nature and grave indiscipline that I do not think that not taking into consideration the past record could have mitigated this grave indiscipline.
6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.