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

Augustine George Masih, J.—By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP No. 20157 of 2008 titled as Indian Acrylics Ltd, Village Harkrishanpura, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Anr. CWP No. 20160 of 2008 titled as Indian Acrylics Ltd, Village Harkrishanpura, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Anr. and CWP No. 20171 of 2008 titled as Indian Acrylics Ltd, Village Harkrishanpura, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Anr., as the counsel for the parties have submitted that the questions of fact and law involved in the present writ petitions as well as the evidence led before the Labour Court is same. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 20157 of 2008 titled as Indian Acrylics Ltd, Village Harkrishanpura, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Anr.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that vide the impugned Award, the Labour Court has misdirected itself in coming to a conclusion that the documents Ex. MW8/A and Ex. MW8/B, which were produced by the petitioner-Management, were not genuine documents. He contends that Ex. MW8/A was the photocopy of the attendance register for the month of August, 1994, which clearly depicted that on 22-23.08.1994, the workmen were on strike and document Ex. MW8/B was a communication received from the Department of Labour dated 09.11.1994, which showed that the workers had resorted to strike on 22.08.1994. He contends that these documents go a long way to prove that the workman had resorted to strike and, therefore, the allegations made against the workman for the misconduct i.e. inciting the other workers to go on strike on 22.08.1994 and thereafter instigating the co-workers of shift-A and shift-B to sit on dharna. Apart from that, respondent No. 2-workman addressed the said gathering and raised slogans against the supervisory staff of the petitioner. A threat to blow up the plant and machinery was also given.

When Anil Singh Duggal, Sr. Manager and D.K. Kalia, Manager Electrical requested respondent No. 2-workman and the co-workers to resume their duties they did not listen to them and rather threatened them with dire consequences. They resorted to strike on 22.08.1994 at about 2 P.M. and the strike continued till 6.30 P.M. on 23.08.1994. Respondent No. 2-workman had taken active part to incite and instigate the workers to join the strike and misbehaved with the Management. He, however, submits that in the light of the fact that the enquiry proceedings, which were held against the workman, were found to be not in accordance with law and the same fact having not been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition, the Labour Court should have taken into consideration the evidence led by the Management before it justifying the order of termination of respondent No. 2-workman and should have, in the light of the evidence led by the Management specially Ex. MW 8/A and Ex. MW 8/B and rejected the claim of the workman.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the order of termination is not found to be totally justified but since the allegations against the workman are that he had misbehaved with the superior officers, the workman should not be reinstated in service. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade etc., . He on this basis, prays that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court set aside.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the enquiry proceedings, which are stated to have been held against respondent No. 2-workman, were found to be not in accordance with law by the Labour court, which finding has not been challenged by the petitioners. The only option left with the Management before the Labour Court was to produce its evidence justifying the order of termination of the workman. No cogent evidence was led by the Management before the Labour Court which would justify the termination of the services of the workman. What to say of justifying the termination of the services of the workman, the basis for the termination i.e. the workman resorting to strike on 22-23.08.1994 had not been proved before the Labour Court. The findings recorded by the Labour Court in this regard are fully justified. The Management witnesses while appearing before the Labour Court admitted that they had not received any written complaint from the loyal workers of the Management, who were forced to go on strike on 22.08.1994. No communication was sent by the Management to the Labour Department, as mandated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Even the Management witnesses have admitted that they do not know the workers who had resorted to strike or who had instigated the workers to participate in the strike. As regards Ex. MW8/A and Ex. MW8/B is concerned, he submits that Ex. MW8/A is the Attendance Registrer, which shows that all the workers were on strike. If that would have been the position, it would have affected the production in the factory, which fact has been admitted by the Management witnesses that there was no fall in the production during these two days. This, he submits, shows that the said document is a fabricated document and cannot be relied upon. As regards Ex. MW8/B is concerned, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman submits that the said document is in the form of a show cause notice to the Management, wherein they had not reported the Labour Department about the strike on 22.08.1994 and nothing was brought on record to show as to whether any finding was recorded by the Labour Department that the workman had, as a matter of fact, proceeded on strike on 22-23.08.1994, as alleged. He, on this basis, contends that no interference is called for by this Court as the Award passed by the Labour Court is based on the evidence led by the parties and on correct appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

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 misconduct 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.

Finding no merit in any of the writ petitions, the same stand dismissed.