Parity in disciplinary action depends on similarly situated employees, and termination was upheld despite a discrimination challenge.

Parity in employment discipline applies only where employees are similarly situated. A workman who continued to justify his conduct, rather than tendering an unqualified apology and accepting the charges, was held to stand on a different footing from employees who had expressed remorse and given undertakings. The employer's differential treatment was supported by a real and relevant distinction, so the termination sustained by the Tribunal could not be invalidated on a discrimination argument. The High Court erred in treating that distinction as artificial and in interfering with the Tribunal's conclusion upholding termination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-workman could be treated at par with other employees who had tendered unqualified apology and regret, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Tribunal's conclusion sustaining the termination.

Analysis: The respondent-workman was not in the same position as the other employees, because he continued to justify his conduct instead of accepting the charges and expressing remorse. The employer had acted on the basis of the unqualified apology and undertakings given by the others, and the difference in treatment was therefore supported by a real and relevant distinction. Interference was not warranted merely because some other employees were not removed, since parity applies only where the persons are similarly situated.

Conclusion: The High Court's view that the distinction was artificial was erroneous, and the termination sustained by the Tribunal could not be set aside on the ground of discrimination.

---