The petitioners are the workers in the second respondent management. Their case are as follows:
The petitioners were regular workers under the second respondent management. The petitioners were paid daily wage of Rs.60/-. They were suspended by the second respondent management from 21.12.1995. Charge memos were issued by the respondent to them on 11.01.1996. They have submitted their explanations to the second respondent management and without considering the same, a domestic enquiry was conducted by the respondent. A second show cause notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioners on 23.2.1996 and the petitioners submitted their explanations to the respondent management. The respondent management, without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, terminated the petitioners from services, as per order dated 16.03.1996 with effect from 20.12.1995. The entire disciplinary action is against the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were victimized for their trade union activities. The respondent resorted to unfair labour practice. The allegations have been made against the petitioners with the help of sponsored trade union namely, INTUC. The petitioners were not given fair and proper opportunity during domestic enquiry. The findings of the enquiry officer were not supported by legal, valid and acceptable evidence. The final order of termination cannot be given effect to without the approval of the special Tribunal where an industrial dispute is pending. Hence, the order of termination has no legal sanction. The charges against the petitioners have not been taken into account. The punishments of the termination is highly excessive and revealing the vindicative attitude of the respondent. The order of respondent is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, unjust, vindicative and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of labour (conciliation), Dindigul and the conciliation ended in failure. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking reinstatement in service with continuity of service with backwages and other attendant benefits.
2. The respondent management has taken a stand as per the counter filed before the Tribunal, which are as follows:
The respondent management is a private spinning mill, registered under the Companies Act. On 19.12.1995, when the petitioners came to the mill to work in the second shift, the petitioners abused co-workers with filthy language and threatened them not to come to the mill. On 20.12.1995, when the mill worker one Varadharajan came to the mill to attend his work in the second shift, the petitioners prevented him and not allowed him to attend the work and apart from that they have also abused and attacked. However, escaping from their attack the said Varadharajan came to the mill and he made a complaint against the petitioners. The charge memos have been issued to the petitioners on 11.01.1996. The petitioners submitted their explanations, since the same were not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The petitioners were given due opportunity during the course of domestic enquiry. The principles of natural justice were adhered to during the domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer has held that the charges against the petitioners were proved. The past records of the petitioners were considered. The petitioners were terminated from service as per the order dated 16.03.1996. More than 150 men and women workers are working in the respondent mill. Due to the unlawful attitude of the petitioners, the respondent had lost the confidence reposed on them. The attitude of the petitioners gave an impression of a bully to the public as well as to the co-workers. The order of dismissal of the petitioners from services is fair, just and proper. The respondent has to maintain the discipline of the mill. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from the respondent. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Ultimately, on the basis of enquiry report, the Tribunal originally gave a preliminary award dated 29.05.2001, wherein the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was true, proper, correct, valid and the principles of natural justice were followed. Thereafter, gave a finding, that a valid enquiry has been conducted and posted the case for further enquiry on 15.06.2001. Finally on 30th July 2004, the Presiding Officer, gave a reasoned finding that the charges have been proved and charge is of serious nature, as they had attempted to intimidate the workers, subordinates, officers, prevented them from entering into the premises and attending the work. Hence, concluded that the punishment granted to them namely, dismissal from services is in consonance with the offences committed by the delinquent employees. Placing reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriji Vidyalaya and another v. Patel Anil Kumar Lalluthai and another reported in 1999 (82) FLR 694 wherein it has been held that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority cannot normally be substituted by the Tribunal. Also placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of V.Venugopal and another v. Management of Relays and Electronic Limited, Madras and another reported in 1998 Labour and Industrial cases 86, wherein it has been held that to the workers who were alleged to have used threatening language against the other co-workers and also prevented them from entering into factory premises, the punishment of dismissal from services imposed was not disproportionate or amounted to victimisation. Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal from services.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been employed from the year 1989, 1990 and 1996 respectively and there were some union troubles in respect of two rival unions and the management taking into consideration the difference of opinion, victimised the petitioners, and therefore, the enquiry itself is illegal. Further, he would submit that the enquiry officer did not allow the petitioners to cross examine the Management witness and on the other hand obtained the signatures of the petitioners in the enquiry proceedings. He would also further contend that their reply in respect of second show cause notice was not properly considered, and therefore, they raised an industrial dispute and in the preliminary award issued on 29.05.2001, the Tribunal has upheld the finding of the enquiry officer as fair and correct. Ultimately, they have upheld the punishment, which is not in proportion with the charges levelled against them. He would also further contend that the order of the Tribunal and the order of the domestic enquiry officer are all without any basis and is biased. They would also admit the act of preventing the workers from going to the work. Therefore, out of the total strength of 150 workers obstructing two workmen will not be a big casualty.
6. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent management would very seriously argue that the whole charges is that on 20.12.1995, the petitioners obstructed two workmen from going for the second shift work (between 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon and 11.00 p.m. in the night) and also made an assault on those people. Apart from that, they have also used abusive and filthy languages. Therefore, the crime committed by them was very serious in nature, for which, originally they were suspended and they have refused to receive the suspension notice and later on, they were served through post. After that, explanation was sought for and the explanations submitted by them were not satisfactory, and therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer gave all the benefits given under law, the entire principles of natural justice was followed and all opportunities were given to the petitioners. In fact, the member of the union also was permitted to be present along with them during the enquiry. After a detailed enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioners and they were given report. Then, second show cause notice was issued and not satisfying with the explanations given by the petitioners, ultimately, on 20.12.1995 they have been dismissed from service. It was also specifically contended that an assistance was also given to the petitioners and all witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioners and they have also cross examined them. They were also given assistance of copy of the documents, also provided with sufficient opportunity for producing documents and examining their witnesses. Aggrieved against the dismissal, when they moved the Tribunal, a preliminary issue was tried in respect of the domestic enquiry and after elaborate consideration, the learned Presiding Officer had given a detailed finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and properly represented and the petitioners cannot have any grievance insofar as the domestic enquiry is concerned. Based on the preliminary award, the Labour Court gave a further time and after elaborate argument and after detailed discussions, the Labour Court has also awarded finally that the punishment of dismissal from service was in consonance with the charges, as the charges are very serious in nature. In fact, the finding of the Tribunal was very clear that once the charges have been proved, it cannot be said that the dismissal from service amounts to victimisation, unless the petitioners are able to prove that there was any other motive for the respondent to pass an order of dismissal against the petitioners.
7. In view of the charges that the petitioners have threatened two co- workers not to attend work on 19.12.1995 and 20.12.1995, when the petitioners have physically obstructed the co-workers and also assaulted the co-workers, who were going to attend shift duty, such activities will definitely affect the morale among the co-workers and management has to maintain discipline and in doing so, the punishment of dismissal from service was definitely in consonance with the charges.
8. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (110) FLR 898 (M/s.Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and another) wherein, it is held that the High Court cannot interfere with the factual and categorical finding of the Labour Court as to whether the quantum of punishment meted out by the Management to a workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient or not. That apart, the High Court, while exercising powers under the writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court, which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it.
9. Therefore, in this case, the Labour Court has given a clear finding that, not only the enquiry was conducted in a fair, proper manner and the principles of natural justice has been followed but also has given a finding that the charges are proved and the charges are very serious in nature, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is correct. Hence, such a clear cut finding based on evidence and materials adduced by the Labour Court cannot be simply interfered with especially in this case, as it is done in accordance with law.
10. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5 SCC 554 (Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of Usha Breco Limited and another) wherein it has been held that assault, intimidation are penal offences. A workman indulging in commission of a criminal offence should not be spared only because he happens to be a union leader. The Act does not encourage indiscipline. It will be a matter of some concern if the opinion of the enquiry officer can be totally ignored despite the fact that the management is precluded from adducing any fresh evidence before the Labour Court. A union leader does not enjoy immunity from being proceeded with in a case of misconduct. Section 11-A, although is wide one, it must be judiciously exercised. It may scrutinise and analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 11-A should have been invoked and the Labour Court should have set aside the finding of the enquiry officer does not warrant at all, especially in this case, where it has been categorically proved that the findings of the enquiry officer was in accordance with law and not perverse. Above all those things, even the punishment is only in accordance with the charges and not disproportionate to the charges levelled against them. The petitioners also have not made out any case for interference with the findings of the enquiry officer as confirmed by the Tribunal both in the preliminary award as well as in the final award.
11. In the result this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
srm