AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari
to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D . No. 163 of 1995 dated 12.12.1995 and quash the same.
On 1.10.2004, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration, no representation was offered on the part of the petitioner in spite
of the learned counsel for the second respondent is present and ready to argue the matter and hence this Court is left with no choice but to reserve
the orders in the above writ petition for appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the learned counsel for the second
respondent and on perusal of the materials placed on record.
In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the Spinning Department of the second
respondent/Management on 10.7.1987; that he joined the Coimbatore Textile Workers Union, which is affiliated to the Hind Mazdoor Sabha,
along with 125 employees of the second respondent; that on 22.5.1992, all the newly joined members of the said Union conducted a flag hoisting
programme opposite the second respondent Mill and he was elected as an Office Bearer of the said Union; that the second respondent
Management disliked his active participation in the Union and on 22.5.1992 he was removed from service by an oral order without serving any
notice or conducting any domestic enquiry and simultaneously, on 23.5.1992, the second respondent Management also removed the flag post
through their coolies for which he lodged a police complaint against the second respondent Management; that on 5.6.1992, he addressed a letter
to the Manager of the second respondent Management requesting to allow him for work.
The petitioner would further submit that again on 1.6.1992, on behalf of the Union, he arranged a flag hoisting programme opposite the Mill and
the Management attacked the Union workers with some rowdy elements who used dangerous weapons including cycle chain as a result of which
the members of the Union received grievous injuries and hence he lodged a police complaint before the Vedachandur Police Station; that once
again on 28.7.1992, he arranged a flag hoisting programme with the legal permission opposite the second respondent Management and knowing
the programme, the second respondent Management has lodged a false complaint before the Police against the petitioner and others as a result of
which the Police arrested the petitioner and five others on 27.7.1992; that even with the full tolerance of the above arrest incident, on 28.7.1992,
the flag hoisting programme was peacefully conducted by the Union with the help of police protection; that the coolies of the second
respondent/Management pelted stones on the Union Members who were returning from the flag hoisting programme and they received grievous
injuries due to the above attack instigated by the Management and the police also caused injuries due to unruly attack by the coolies of the
Management; that immediately, the police entered the second respondent Management Mill and also arrested 25 coolies of the Management; that
for the above incident, the Management made a false complaint against 115 Union Members.
The petitioner would further submit that on 10.6.1992, he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer for conciliation for his removal
from service of the second respondent Management and the Management has stated before the Conciliation Officer that the petitioner had resigned
from the job and that they have issued the service certificate of the petitioner and hence he had no locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute before
the conciliation Officer; that the above statement of the Management is totally false for the reason that the Management had forged the documents
including his resignation letter and payment voucher; that at the time of joining, the Management had obtained his three signatures on papers,
payment voucher and another letter pad of the Management which was utilised by the second respondent Management to show that he had
resigned from the job on 22.5.1992; that on 9.9.1992, the Conciliation Officer issued a Failure Report and on that he raised an Industrial Dispute
before the Labour Court and since the same was dismissed by the Labour Court, he has come forward to file the above writ petition on certain
grounds as brought forth in the grounds of writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra.
The firm stand taken on the part of the second respondent/Management both before the Labour Court and this Court during arguments is that
the petitioner worked with them from 10.7.1987 to 21.5.1992 and on 22.5.1992, on his own accord, he resigned from his job and hence his
accounts were settled on the same day itself; that Service Certificate of the petitioner was also issued to him; that it was not the practice to obtain
any signature in any advance voucher and payment voucher or letter of the respondent and the allegations about the installation of the flag post and
consequent incidents are false and it is a story twisting the truth; that the six persons who also resigned the job along with the petitioner have also
raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer and they have admitted before the conciliation Officer the fact of their resignation and receiving
money in settlement of their accounts and prayed for some more ex-gratia and accordingly the second respondent Management had also accepted
and paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/= to each of them.
The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the Labour Court in full consideration of all the facts and circumstances
of the case has dismissed the plea of the petitioner for reinstatement by its Award dated 12.12.1995, but the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition
on 23.6.1997 i.e. after a period of 1 1/2 years and if really he is interested in getting the reinstatement, he should have pursued the matter carefully
and approached the Court at the earliest. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that if his signatures were taken in
blank papers, he should have mentioned it before the conciliation, which is the earliest opportunity afforded to him, but he has not raised such a
plea before the Conciliation Officer. On such grounds, the second respondent would pray to dismiss the above writ petition.
In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the second
respondent alone with no representation made on the part of the petitioner, since this Court has to decide the above writ petition based on those
materials made available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the second respondent, what comes to be known is that the above
writ petition has been filed praying to quash the Award of the first respondent dated 12.12.1995 made in I.D . No. 163 of 1995 and to pass
further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
The contentions of the petitioner, in short, are that he joined the second respondent Management on 10.7.1987 as a permanent employee and
his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 700/=; that himself and 125 other employees had joined the Coimbatore Textile Union (SMS) and on
22.5.1992, they hoisted the SMS flag opposite to the Mill on account of which differences arose in between the Management and the petitioner
since he was an Office Bearer of the said Workers Union and many unpleasant incidents took place, ultimately resulting in the petitioner having
been removed from the services of the second respondent Management by an oral order.
The petitioner would offer such instances of hoisting the flag as on 22.5.1992, 23.5.1992, 1.6.1992 and on 28.7.1992 and the Management
removing the same through their henchmen; that the petitioner and five other workers were also alleged to have been arrested on 27.7.1992 at the
instance of the second respondent Management. He would further cite yet another incident that occurred on 28.7.1992 in which the police caused
the arrest of the 25 henchmen of the second respondent Management.
The further case of the petitioner is that against the removal of the petitioner from the services of the second respondent, he moved for
Conciliation before the Conciliation Officer for a remedy and since it ended in failure, on a failure report had been made on the part of the Officer
concerned, the petitioner approached the Labour Court for remedy and the Labour Court also having conducted an enquiry since concluded that
the non-employment of the petitioner was justifiable, thus ultimately dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, left with no choice, the petitioner
has come forward to file this writ petition.
Before the Labour Court, the petitioner has testified himself as a witness on his side and on the part of the second respondent Management
also, one witness was examined. Besides these oral evidence let in on the part of both, the petitioner has marked six documents as Exs.W.1 to
W.6, they respectively being the letters by the petitioner''s Union to the second respondent dated 22.5.1992 with postal acknowledgment in
original dated 26.5.1992, letter by the petitioner to the respondent dated 5.6.1992 with postal acknowledgment in original dated 6.6.1992, the
original receipt given by the S.I. of Police, Vedasandur dated 23.5.1992 and the original letter addressed by the second respondent to the Labour
Officer, Dindigul dated 17.8.1992. On the part of the second respondent Management, nine documents would be marked as Exs.M.1 to M.9,
they being respectively the Registration Letter of the petitioner, the payment voucher by the second respondent to the petitioner, the service
certificate issued by the second respondent to the petitioner, letter by the petitioner to the second respondent, letter by the Labour Officer to the
second respondent, letter by the petitioner to the Labour Officer, Dindigul, conciliation failure report, standing order of the second respondent
Management and the xerox copy of the receipt issued by the petitioner.
A perusal of the Award of the Labour Court would only depict a dark picture and commission of patent errors and perversity in approach
since absolutely there is no mention or consideration of the oral evidence let in by the witnesses particularly on the part of the petitioner. It is more
hideous and pathetic to note from the Award of the Labour Court that the exhibits marked on the part of the Management as Exs.M.1 to M.9
have been taken as Godsaying without any discussion held on them. Nor did he hold discussion on those exhibits marked by the workmen barring
the only Ex.W.5, the receipt showing the complaint lodged by the petitioner to the police dated 23.5.1992. No other document marked on the
part of the petitioner has been either taken-up for consideration or any discussion held for any reason assigned on the part of the Labour Court.
Even the document mentioned in the Award has been referred only to remark that the copy of the complaint has not been filed as though the
Labour Court, in the circumstances of the case filed on the part of the petitioner, has no knowledge of the dates and events mentioned therein for
the trouble that has arisen in between the Management and the workers Union of which the petitioner was an Office Bearer as claimed on the part
of the petitioner and as though the Labour Court is bereft of its power to consider the oral evidence adduced on the part of the petitioner to the
said effect so as to arrive at its own conclusions regarding the receipt issued by the police in favour of the petitioner marked as Ex.M.5 on the part
of the petitioner. This attitude adopted on the part of the Labour Court would only establish that the Labour Court had pre-determined the issue so
as to pass an Award in favour of the Management and that is why it did not have the mind to either assess the oral evidence which, in the event of
proper consideration, might go against the Management and therefore it may not be out of place or unreasonable on the part of this Court to
mention that the Labour Court has decided the matter on extraneous considerations and not as it is required under law.
Even those documents marked on the part of the Management, have not been considered in their proper perspective and without any
discussion held on them, the manner in which the Labour Court has accepted the veracity of all those documents as they have been attributed to
have come into existence on the part of the Management, would only create still more doubts regarding the genuineness of the Award passed by
the Labour Court.
In the above circumstances, it is only safe to conclude that neither the Labour Court has decided the industrial dispute raised on the part of the
petitioner in full consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as put up by the petitioner and resisted on the part of the Management
following the procedures established by law so as to arrive at a valid and impartial decision and therefore the only conclusion that this Court could
arrive at is that the Award passed by the Labour Court is not a fair one passed as required under law and hence it has to be decided that the
award of the labour Court was not on merits nor in accordance with law and the same becomes only liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been employed in the second respondent Management from 10.7.1987 till
22.5.1992 i.e. almost for a stretch of five years, as a permanent employee, drawing a salary of Rs. 700/= when he was ejected from the service of
the second respondent Management all of a sudden, almost on a single day, as though the petitioner resigned from the services of the second
respondent employment on his own along with others, without assigning any reason for such a drastic situation to arise for only those selected
employees to resign from their employment.
If the allegations raised on the part of the workman/petitioner regarding the instances narrated by him to have occurred before and after the
date of ejection of the petitioner from service on 22.5.1992 are to be considered, it would come to be seen that the employees of the second
respondent have started the Union under the name and style of Coimbatore Textile Workers Union affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Sabha with the
membership of 125 employees of the second respondent Management and the flag hoisting programme having been sabotaged on the part of the
Management, some untoward incidents took place as per the narration of the dates and events in a sequel manner and under such circumstances,
the police complaint said to have been lodged on 23.5.1992 by the petitioner for which the receipt has been issued by the concerned police and
the Management coming forward to claim that a day before the complaint that was on 22.5.1992, the petitioner resigned from the employment of
the second respondent if looked into in the light of the oral evidence advanced on the part of the petitioner, it would only create a very strong
suspicion to the claim of the Management that the petitioner volunteered to resign from the employment of the second respondent Management and
therefore the documents advanced on the part of the Management to the effect of the resignation i.e. under Ex.M.1 dated 22.5.1992, the payment
voucher given by the second respondent under Ex.M.2 dated 22.5.1992, the service certificate issued by the second respondent to the petitioner
under Ex.M.3 dated 22.5.1992 should have been subjected to very strict scrutiny by the Labour Court particularly in view of the fact that it is
claimed on the part of the petitioner that they have not been given by him on that particular date on which it is claimed that the petitioner resigned
from the job that was on 22.5.1992 but making use of those signatures obtained in blank papers at the time of joining the employment of the
second respondent, everything had been done in a stage-managed manner.
Many instances have been given on the part of the petitioner to the effect that blank papers and letter heads in which his signatures were
obtained have been obtained at the time of late Chief Minister Mr. M.G.Ramachandran in office and therefore the definite case of the petitioner
that he having been dead as early as in the year 1987, there was no reason for the said documents to have been used as on 22.5.1992 i.e. after
five years which would only consolidate the case of the petitioner further revealing that the Labour Court did not have a mind to go through all
these aspects nor to discuss the same nor arrived at a valid conclusion.
Further more, the Labour Court itself has extracted in para No. 3 of its Award the materials from the counter filed by the Management to the
effect that it was not the practice of the Management to obtain any signature in any advance voucher or payment voucher or letter of the
respondent which would only go to show that these vouchers and documents were manipulated and make-believe documents and they have no
authenticity without bearing the signature of the petitioner for having acknowledged those vouchers and therefore the only unshakable conclusion
that could be arrived at on the totality of the circumstances on a overall consideration of the facts is that the Management taking advantage of the
situation had not only acted in a highhanded manner in quelling the genuine rights of its employees in starting the Labour Union for protecting their
genuine rights but also sacked the petitioner who is an Office Bearer of the Union by adopting unfair trade practice and subjugating his rights by
making use of documents which were made to sign by the petitioner at the time of joining the service in the year 1987 and hence this Court is of the
view that it is a case in which the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that the Labour Court has failed in its duties and responsibilities to
approach the issues raised on the part of the petitioner in the Industrial Dispute and acting in a partial manner and without following the procedures
established by law, it has arrived at a wrong conclusion just contrary to the true facts and circumstances and hence the Award passed by the
Labour Court only becomes liable to be quashed and the same is ordered accordingly. Needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement in service with all his backwages and attendant benefits with continuity of service as though he has been serving in the second
respondent Management all these days continuously from the date of his appointment till date and hence the following order:
In result,
(i) the above Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Award dated 12.12.1995 made in I.D . No. 163 of 1995 by the Labour Court, Trichy is hereby quashed.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all his backwages and attendant benefits and with continuity of
service as though he has been serving in the second respondent Management all these days continuously from the date of his appointment till date.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.