Indian Acrylics Ltd. and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.

C.M. Nos. 43 of 2011 and 44 of 2011

In view of reasons given, in these applications, the same are allowed and delay in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

LPA No. 14 of 2011

This order will dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 14 of 2011, 15 of 2011 and 16 of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 2011.

By filing this appeal, Appellants/ management have impugned an order dated 21.4.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding an award passed by the Labour Court on 5.9.2008, ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No. 2/ workman, with continuity in service and payment of 20% back wages.

On behalf of the Respondent-workman, Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate came present on the first date of hearing. We made an attempt to effect compromise between the parties, however the same could not be materialized.

Heard counsel for the parties.

At the time of arguments, counsel for the Appellants has failed to convince us so far as merits of the case are concerned. As per facts on record, the workman was taken in service by the Appellants on 18.5.1992. His service was terminated on 8.11.1994, on an allegation that on 28.8.1994, the workman in this appeal and in two other appeals, incited and instigated the workmen of ''A'' and ''B'' shifts to go on strike. The workmen also threatened the officials of the management. Before the Labour Court, evidence was led by both the parties and on analysis thereof, the Labour Court, vide award dated 5.9.2008, held that the termination of the workman was not justified. Evidence produced by the management was rejected and it was ordered that the workman be taken back with continuity in service and also 20% of the back wages. Appellant management came to this Court by filing CWP No. 20160 of 2008, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.4.2010, by observing as under:

It is not in dispute that the first plea which was taken by the Management with regard to holding of a departmental enquiry against Respondent No. 2-workman to justify the order of termination was not accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry proceedings were held to be not in accordance with law. These findings are not challenged by the Petitioners-Management in the present writ petition. Now the evidence, which has been led by the Management and the workman in support of their respective contentions, are to be gone into. The only two documents, reliance whereof has been made by the Management with regard to resorting to strike by the workman on 22-23.08.1994, are Ex. MW8/A and Ex. MW8/B. Ex. MW8/A is the photocopy of the attendance register for the month of August, 1994. A perusal of the said document shows that on the said dates, no presence of the workers was marked but it had been mentioned that they are on strike and the statement of the Management witnesses that some of the workers performed duties on 22-23.08.1994 is belied from the documents, on which the reliance has been placed by the Management. Thus, the statement of the witnesses in this regard cannot be accepted. The said document was in the possession of the Management, which document could have been manipulated by the Management at its own end. The said attendance register is neither signed by the workers nor by the officials of the Department of Labour which would lend some credence to the said document. That apart, the most glaring aspect which shakes the credence of the said document is that on the said two dates i.e. 22.08.1994 and 23.08.1994, there was no loss/fall in production. If the total work force was on strike on these two days, as is apparent from document Ex. MW8/A as relied upon by the Management, the production would have drastically been affected but that is not so. The Management witnesses admitted in their testimony that no complaint in writing was lodged by the workers against the work and conduct of Respondent No. 2-workman. It has also been admitted that there is no written proof available regarding the strike which was resorted to on 22-23.08.1994. No complaint was lodged with the police regarding mis-conduct committed by the workman. Some of the management witnesses themselves stated that on 22.08.1994, no threat was held out to them. It has also been admitted by the Management witnesses in their cross-examination that the workers did not cause any physical harm to them. It is further admitted that the production did not stop in the plant in August, 1994. In the light of the admission made by the Management witnesses, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court that the document Ex. MW8/A was a fabricated document, cannot be said to be without any basis as the said document contradicts the statement of the Management witnesses where they have stated that some of the workers were working in shifts while others had resorted to strike, whereas Ex. MW8/A shows all the workers to be on strike. As regards document Ex. MW8/B letter dated 09.11.1994, which is addressed by the Labour Department to the Petitioners is concerned, suffice it to say that it was only a notice which was issued to the Management by the Labour Department as to why they have not informed the Labour Department as per the Industrial Disputes Act for the strike on 22.08.1994. Nothing has been brought on record by the Management as to what action was taken in pursuance of the said notice. These two documents, on which reliance has been placed by the Management, cannot be made the basis for holding that the workers had resorted to strike on 22-23.08.1994. All this goes to show that the evidence, which had been led by the Management, did not carry weight. The finding thus recorded by the Labour Court qua the workman having not resorted to strike on 22-23.08.1994 by holding that the Management has failed to prove by leading reliable evidence in this regard, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. As regards the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners that Respondent No. 2-workman indulged in misbehaving with the superior officers, suffice it to say that the Management witnesses themselves have failed to identify the workers, who had misbehaved with the officials. Some of the Management witnesses stated that the workman had not misbehaved with them and rather have admitted that no physical harm was caused to them. That being the position, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioners in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra) cannot be pressed into service in favour of the Management. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when exercised by this Court and that too, when an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is under challenge, is restricted. The writ jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where judicial conscious of the High Court dictates it to act lest gross failure of justice or grave injustice shall occasion. The Award of the Labour Court, if passed on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the respective parties, generally should not be interfered with. It is merely when the findings recorded by the Labour Court are either based on no evidence or are such which would be perverse, then the Court would exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If two views are possible on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the view taken by the Labour Court while passing the Award deserves to be upheld unless such findings are totally contrary to the records. In the present case, the Labour Court has given a finding on the basis of the evidence led by the parties which cannot be said to be without any basis or perverse or not based on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. This further persuades this Court not to interfere in the Award passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

We feel that the finding given above is perfectly justified. It is not in dispute that at an earlier point of time, enquiry was instituted against the workman by the management, findings of the enquiry were set aside by the Labour Court. That order was not challenged and has become final. The learned Single Judge has rightly discarded evidence brought on record by the management and we are not inclined to interfere in the same.

At the time when efforts were made to compromise the matter, counsel for the Appellants very fairly stated that the management is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-to the Respondent-workman in addition to the amount, which has already been paid under orders passed by the Labour Court and otherwise. This offer was not accepted by counsel for the Respondent.

To claim relief, counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance upon ratio of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, , Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, and Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773. Counsel for the Appellants further states that the service was terminated in the year 1994. The Appellant is settled in life. If he is taken back in service now, he will not be a willing worker and will try to create further problems with the management. It is further stated that the Appellant-management has lost faith in the Respondent-workman because of long drawn litigation and the relations will not be cordial. A prayer has been made to grant compensation in lump-sum in lieu of reinstatement of the workman in service.

The prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the Respondent-workman, by stating that the workman was permanent in service, his termination was bad, as such he deserves reinstatement in service.

At the time of arguments, counsel for the Respondent, on getting instructions from the workman, has failed to state that throughout since the year 1994, workman was sitting idle and was not doing any work. Such a plea otherwise also is not acceptable because the workman has a family and to survive and feed the family, he might be doing work with some other concern.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Seal''s case (supra), have granted an amount of Rs. 40,000/-only in lieu of reinstatement in service by taking note of a fact that the workman''s service was terminated more than 25 years earlier to the order of reinstatement. Same is the position in other two cases cited by counsel for the Appellant.

In the present case, counsel for the Appellant-management was very fair when he stated that the management is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-to each workman, towards final settlement of all disputes.

Taking note of facts of this case, to settle equities between the parties and also a fact that the workman had worked with the management for less than three years and service was terminated more than 16 years earlier, we dispose of these appeals by modifying the relief given to the Respondents-workmen, by ordering that instead of reinstatement in service, each of the workman in these three appeals be paid an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-in addition to the amount, which they may have received during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below. The amount shall be paid within two months, failing which, the workmen be at liberty to execute the order passed.