“12. Again victimization must be directly connected with the activities of the concerned employee inevitably leading to the penal action without the necessary proof of a valid charge against him. The question to be asked is: Is the reason for the punishment attributable to a gross misconduct about which there is no doubt or to his particular trade union activity which is frowned upon by the employer? To take an example, suppose there is a tense atmosphere prevailing in a Company because of a strike consequent upon raising of certain demands by the Union, each party calling the other highly unreasonable or even provocative, the Tribunal will not readily accept a plea of victimization as answer to a gross misconduct even when an employee, be he an active office-bearer of the Union, commits assault, let us say, upon the Manager, and there is reliable legal evidence to that effect. In such a case the employee, found guilty, cannot be equated with a victim or a scapegoat and the plea of victimization as a defence will fall flat. This is why once, in the opinion of the Tribunal a gross misconduct is established, as required, on legal evidence, either in a fairly conducted domestic enquiy or before the Tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization will not carry the case of the employee any further. A proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization as understood in industrial relations. This is not to say that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of dismissal on proof of victimization.”
