Introduction: Doctrine Of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality is one of the main principles that guide administrative law. The doctrine of proportionality is a legal principle which requires that the acts performed by the government are proportional, reasonable, and fair. The principle is created to stop the government from taking decisions which are harsher than necessary to achieve its aims. In this way, the doctrine of proportionality protects citizens from arbitrary and disproportional actions of the government.

The doctrine of proportionality has its origins from Europe and has been gradually recognized by other countries such as the USA and Canada. However, doctrine of proportionality is not unconditionally followed in India and court’s reasoning differs on a case-to-case basis, simultaneously considering doctrine of flexibility.

The doctrine of proportionality, as per European model, consists of four tests:
1. Legitimacy- It refers to the question of the legitimacy of the objective aiming which the act is under review.
2. Suitability- It refers to the question of whether the act is competent to achieve the objective.
3. Necessity- The act should be the only choice and least intrusive means to attain the desired objective.
4. Fair balance or proportionality- There must be a fair balance between the intrusive act and the benefit obtained from the act to attain the objective.

Lord Diplock clearly demonstrated the concept of proportionality through an0 example “You must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut if a nutcracker would do.” According to this line, the action must not be more unnecessarily intrusive than is required to attain the public objective. It provided for the objective criteria analysis in the cases of judicial review. The doctrine can be applied only if the facts of the case pass certain tests of proportionality. This case briefing analyses a case in IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) format from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which dealt with doctrine of proportionality.

COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK v. COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANOTHER

Citation: (2007) 4 SCC 669
Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2007
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: 2-judge bench comprising C.K. Thakker and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

FACTS:

The Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank (the appellant) faced an illegal strike called by the respondent Union on 17th April, 1972. After a settlement was reached between the Management and the Union, 134 out of 187 workers resumed their duty.

However, 53 workers did not come for work, continued with the illegal strike, physically prevented other employees from joining duty, and administered threats to those who came to receive wages. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these 53 workers and an inquiry was conducted ex-parte since they refused to appear. All four charges against them were proved. The Management imposed two punishments:

(i) stoppage of increment for 1 to 4 years with cumulative effect, and (ii) non-payment of salary during the period of suspension.

The Labour Court upheld the punishment. Upon appeal by the Union, The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the stoppage of increments, and the Division Bench modified it by removing the cumulative effect.

The Bank challenged this interference by the High Court before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was justified in invoking and applying the doctrine of proportionality under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Management, which had already been confirmed by the Labour Court after due
inquiry, on the ground that the punishment was harsh or disproportionate to the misconduct proved?

RULE:

The following legal principles and statutory provisions were relevant to the determination of the issue:

(b) Constitution of India, Articles 226, 32 and 136 (Power of Judicial Review): These provisions vest the High Court and Supreme Court with the power of judicial review. The scope of this power, particularly in relation to punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings, was central to the case. It is settled law that in exercise of this power, a court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authority unless the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or no reasonable person could have reached such findings.

(c) Doctrine of Proportionality: The doctrine of proportionality is a principle of administrative law by which a court, while exercising the power of judicial review, examines whether the process, method, and manner in which the decision-maker arrived at a decision was proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

APPLICATION:

The Court analyzed the facts and applicable law in the following manner:
1. Nature of misconduct and findings of inquiry: The inquiry officer found all four charges proved against the 53 workers. The workers had participated in an illegal and unlawful strike even after being informed by the Labour Officer that the strike call was not in consonance with law.

2. Application of doctrine must be context-sensitive: The Court affirmed that while the doctrine of proportionality has been accepted in the Indian legal system, its application is not unconditional. The doctrine must be applied with regard to the facts of each case and must also take into account the purpose and object of the legislation under which the authority acts. In the context of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was enacted to maintain industrial peace and regulate the relationship between employers and workers, the acts of the 53 workers were particularly serious as they disturbed the working of a bank which is an institution of public service.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that neither the decision of the Single Judge nor of the Division Bench of the High Court was completely justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Management and confirmed by the Labour Court. The Court declared that the award of the Labour Court was perfectly just, legal, and proper and required no interference. The High Court exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by virtually substituting its own judgment for that of the Management and the Labour Court.

However, considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case, mainly that industrial peace had been restored, the 53 workers had been working sincerely for over three decades, and no further proceedings had been initiated against them, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution and declined to disturb the limited relief already granted to the workers by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.