AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the Management of Amalgamations REPCO Ltd. for setting aside the award
passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 427 of 1982 dated 16.4.1996.
The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-
The petitioner company is having a factory at Madhavaram, which is used for manufacturing clutch plates and clutch assemblies required for the
automobile industry. The petitioner is governed by the Model Standing Orders prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Standing
Orders Rules. The second respondent, hereinafter called ""the workman"", was employed as a machine operator. The second respondent was
elected as a Group Leader of the recognised union during the year 1974-75. According to the case of the management, the second respondent
became indifferent to his work. During the year 1977, several memos were issued to him alleging that he was guilty of go-slow tactic. In respect of
charge dated 17.8.1977, a domestic enquiry was held and he was found guilty of adopting ""go-slow"". Similarly he was charged with misconduct of
riotous and disorderly behaviour and he was found guilty in the domestic enquiry. It was proposed to dismiss him from service on account of these
two enquiries. However, in deference to the representation of the recognised union, no punishment was imposed. During the year 1979, the
workman continued in such indifferent manner and persistently refused to carry out the assigned work, which resulted in loss of wages on the
principle of ""no work-no pay"". On 10.7.1999, a charge was issued to the workman for his insolent behaviour towards Sales Executive. He was
found guilty of such charge and he was dismissed by order dated 9.8.1979. On the representation of the recognised union, the order of dismissal
was rescinded on 5.9.1979 and he was permitted to join duty. After resuming duty in December, 1979, the workman again indulged in go-slow.
During December, 1979 to December,1981, numerous memos were issued. On 13.1.1982, a charge-sheet was issued for of the workman to
produce even a single component on 12.1.1982. The workman was again dismissed by order dated 4.2.1982. The workman made representation
to revise the order. Ultimately, the President of the Union pleaded with the Management to reconsider the order and gave an assurance that he
would advise the workman to mend himself. Based on the representation and the assurance of the President of the Union, the management
permitted the workman to join duty with effect from 3.3.1982, subject to the condition that he would carry out the normal duties arising out of his
employment as an operator on day to-day basis and he would abide by the provisions of the Standing Orders (Ex.M41). The workman was
assigned with the work of drilling 64-202 pressure plates on K.M.T. drilling machine and as against the target of 153 Nos. per shift, the workman
drilled only one piece and he was found idling for rest of the day and he was absent on 20.3.1982. On 22.3.1982, he completed only 3 Nos. of
components for the whole shift. Since the workman was not performing his work as promised by the President of the Union, the management
wrote to the President bringing to his notice the go-slow tactic adopted by the workman. On 25.3.1982, the President of the Union informed the
management that he was taking up the matter with the concerned workman. On 23.3.1982, the workman produced only one component as
against the target of 155 Nos. and similarly he completed only 2 Nos. on 24.3.1982 as against the target of 82 Nos. per shift. When he was
questioned about such low output, he maintained that as a group leader he cannot expected to do the normal work. On 29.3.1982, the workman
wrote to the management stating that even though he had received letter dated 2.3.1982 from the President of the Union and he had agreed to the
conditions, he was not bound by the conditions imposed in the management''s letter dated 2.3.1982, in view of the changed circumstance. The go-
slow activity of the workman continued. On 2.4.1982, the management issued a memo to the workman placing on record his output against the
targeted output from the period 25.3.1982 to 1.4.1982 and further indicated that the workman had been permitted to resume duty on 20.3.1982
on condition that he would give the normal output, but he had gone back on that undertaking and the workman was called for to give a written
undertaking expressing his willingness to perform his normal duties as an employee. By letter dated 4.4.1982, the workman took the stand that the
letter dated 2.4.1982 had been issued with a view to deny him wages and also curb his trade union activities and thereby declined to give any
undertaking. On 14.4.1982, the management passed an order dismissing the workman from service. The relevant portion of the letter of
termination is as follows :-
Ref: 1. Our letter AR.AN.34536 dt. 4.2.82
Our letter AR.AN.34650 dt. 2.3.82
Our letter AR.KS.34736 dt. 21.3.82
Our letter AR.KS.34758 dt. 23.3.82
Our letter AR.KS.34771 dt. 25.3.82
Our letter AR.AN.34828 dt. 2.4.82
Your letter dated 4.4.82
Our letter AR.AN.34841 dt. 4.4.82
Your letter Dated 20.4.82
Our letter AR.AN.34874 dt. 11.4.82
Your letter dated 13.4.82
Reference is invited to the correspondence and communications referred to above.
In spite of repeated opportunities given to you to conform to the Standing Orders of the Establishment and abide by the discipline therein realising
your role as an employee of the Establishment, it is now clear that you have no intention whatsoever of changing your attitude for the better. It is
not possible for any Management to have on its rolls a worker who, deliberately, persistently, continuously and wilfully refuses to carry out the
work to be done by him and also refuses to give even a written unqualified undertaking to do so.
A perusal of your past record also shows that your present attitude is not an isolated one. During the course of 11 years of service you have been
warned on innumerable occasions; wage cuts have been imposed on you; several letters of advice have been given to you to improve your
performance. You also became liable for dismissal once in 1979 though that order has been kept in abeyance pending the review by the Joint
Commissioner of Labour.
In the circumstances, the Management is left with no alternative except to dismiss you from employment of the Company with immediate effect.
Please note that your services stand terminated by way of dismissal with immediate effect.
Thereafter an Industrial Dispute was raised before the Labour Court. The main contention raised by the workman before the Labour Court was
to the effect that without holding any domestic enquiry, he had been dismissed from service. It was contended by the workman before the Labour
Court that being a member of the Labour Union and subsequently elected as a Group Leader of the Union, he was relieved from the normal duty
and as the Management did not like the activities of the workman, it was taking various punitive actions against the workman. On an earlier
occasion, the management had dismissed him on false allegations but, on the intervention of the Union, his termination had been set aside by the
management. In December, 1981, the employees engaged on daily wage basis has struck work and the management took revenge on the
petitioner by dismissing him.
In reply, the management narrated the entire history and recapitulated the various events, which had taken place, and submitted that the order of
dismissal was justified.
The contention of the workman that since he was a group leader and had settled all the labour union problems, he was exempted from doing
normal work, was rejected by the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court held that there was no formal enquiry before the order of
termination was passed and, therefore, the order of termination was not valid, being violative of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court
also negatived the contention that the management had lost confidence and the workman should not be reinstated but some compensation should
be paid. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed that the workman should be reinstated in service with backwages, continuity of service and other
benefits. Such order is challenged in the present writ petition.
During pendency of the writ petition, payment is being made to the workman u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even though a formal enquiry was not held, the
undisputed materials on record clearly indicate that the workman was indulging in go-slow activity inspite of several memos issued earlier and,
therefore, the Labour Court should have upheld the order of termination, more particularly when the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the
workman as a group leader was not exempted from doing the normal work. It is further submitted by him that even assuming that the order of
termination is illegal, since the management had lost confidence, the Labour Court should not have given direction for reinstatement with
backwages but, could have directed for payment of compensation.
Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has supported the order passed by the Labour Court.
Upon going through the order passed by the Labour Court and the other relevant materials, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
order of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement with backwages is a bonanza, considering the obdurate attitude of the workman in refusing to
do any work worth the name on the pretext that being a group leader he was exempted from doing the normal work. A mere perusal of the award
passed by the Labour Court indicates that the Labour Court in no uncertain terms and in several places has negatived the contention of the
workman that being a group leader he was exempted from discharging his normal duty. After having come to such a conclusion, the Labour Court
was not justified in directing reinstatement with backwages merely on the ground that the order of termination was not preceded with any formal
enquiry. Even if no formal enquiry had been held, the entire materials were before the Labour Court and in fact the Labour Court has come to a
categorical conclusion that the workman was not justified in insisting that he was exempted from doing the normal work. The very letter of
termination itself referred to several correspondences between the management on the one hand and the workman or the union on the other hand,
which clearly point out the recalcitrance on the part of the workman to do any normal work. Therefore, the order of termination, even though
without any formal enquiry, was amply justified by the materials on record. Merely because there was no domestic enquiry and in that sense the
principles of natural justice were violated, the Labour Court need not have quashed the order of termination as enough justification was shown by
the Management before the Labour Court. In fact this is a case where no other result would have been possible even if a formal domestic enquiry
would have been held.
The only plea which had been raised by the workman in his correspondence or subsequently in his claim petition was the alleged exemption
from doing the normal duty on account of the workman being elected as a group leader. This plea having been rejected by the Labour Court in no
uncertain terms, the only inevitable conclusion is that there was no justification for the workman to adopt a go-slow tactic repeatedly and
persistently in spite of several earlier reprieves at the instance of the Union. The materials on record clearly point out that the workman was a
confirmed non-performer and, therefore, the management was entirely justified in terminating the workman. May be that the management could
have formally complied with the principles of natural justice by holding a domestic enquiry. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, non-holding of a domestic enquiry cannot be considered as a ground to direct reinstatement of person who was consistently refusing
to discharge the normal work.
In Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B. Zodge and another, , it was observed :- (quoted from Head Note)
A domestic inquiry maybe vitiated either for no n-compliance of rules of natural justice or for perversity. Disciplinary action taken on the basis of a
vitiated inquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no inquiry. The right of the employer to adduce evidence in both
the situations is well recognised. So the employer is entitled to adduce evidences, for the first time, before the Tribunal even if the employer had
held no inquiry or the inquiry held by the employer is found to be perverse.
After referring to the aforesaid decision and several others decisions, in Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Stff
Association and Another, , it was observed :-
... where domestic inquiry was not held or it was vitiated for some reason the Tribunal or Court adjudicating an industrial dispute can itself go
into the question raised before it on the basis of the evidence and other material on record.
It was further observed :-
Now what are the requirements of principles of natural justice, which are required to be observed? These are (1) a workman should know the
nature of the complaint or accusation; (2) an opportunity to state his case; and (3) the management should act in good faith which means that the
action of the management should be fair, reasonable and just. ...
If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analysed in the above context, it is apparent that all the three criteria summarised in the above
Supreme Court decision have been fully met in the present case. The workman cannot pretend that he did not know the nature of the complaint or
accusation against him as he has been repeatedly put on prior notice to perform according to the norms which he consistently refused to follow on
the ground that he was a group leader. The workman had adequate opportunity to state his case as apparent from the discussion made in the
award of the Labour Court. The specific plea that he was not required to reach the norms as he was a group leader of the Union has been
considered by the Labour Court in great detail and has been negatived in no uncertain terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping the background and history of the actions taken against the workman, which were being revoked on the basis of the intervention by the
Union, it cannot be said that the Management did not act in a fair, reasonable and just manner.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am constrained to quash the order passed by the Labour Court and hold that the order of termination was valid.
Next question is as to whether the management would be required to pay any further compensation. The writ petition was filed in the year
1996 and thereafter the management had been paying the last wages drawn in accordance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Apart from payment u/s 17-B at the rate of Rs. 2000/- from 16.4.1996, the workman has been permitted to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- and quarterly
interest on the deposited sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the order in W.A. Nos. 376 and 377 of 1997 dated 15.4.1997. Keeping in view the
background of the case, any further direction regarding payment to the workman would amount to over indulgence. The sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-
kept in deposit shall be refunded to the Management.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.