AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—These two petitions have been filed assailing the award of the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in ID 17/1996 - one by the management aggrieved by the award of reinstatement and payment of back wages and another by the workmen seeking for extension of all consequential benefits including full back wages and also to quash the finding of the inquiry proceedings as also the finding that the inquiry conducted is fair and proper.
The Company is engaged in the manufacture of electrical rotating machines. Management has engaged about ISO employees. Out of them, some of them have joined the CITU Union and the remaining persons are not members of any Union. The workman along with others intended to form an Union questioning the activities of the management in exploiting the workmen, non-payment of clearness allowance and uniform etc. When the management was requested to stop those activities and to treat die workmen properly, management has taken severe stops to keep the petitioner/workman and some other persons under suspension. Thereafter, inquiry was held against the workman and he was dismissed from service against which dispute was raised by the workman u/s 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes Act Labour Court, after inquiry; found that the order of dismissal is too disproportionate and directed the management to reinstate the workman with 20% back wages and continuity of service. However, it has ordered to withhold three increments with cumulative effect Aggrieved, management has filed WP 13038/2005. Subsequently, during pendency of the matter, workman also filed a petition - WP 22612/2009 producing several documents pointing out to the conduct of the management as to how he has been ill-treated and to curb the Union activities and their legitimate demand and, questioning the highhandedness of the management, has sought for extension of full back wages and consequential benefits.
Heard the Counsel representing the parties.
Counsel representing the management submitted that the Labour Court ought not have interfered with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and, also interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority only on the basis of morality is not permissible. Only in the event if it is found the order passed is shocking to the conscience of the court, then only it could be interfered. Three charges were levelled and are proved and there is no reason for the Labour Court to substitute its order while modifying me order of punishment. Accordingly, in support of his argument, learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, As regards back wages it is submitted only from the date of the order of the Tribunal/Labour Court back wages could be ordered and not from the date of dismissal Pointing out to the various discrepancies in the award of the Labour Court learned Counsel sought for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court.
Per contra, Counsel representing the respondent workman taking me through the various documents produced by him submitted that die workman and others have commenced union activities by forming an Union as there was no Union in the company and in order to victimise die members of the Union, stringent action was taken mercilessly and management has went on suspending or dismissing the workmen and, there was also refusal of employment. When they questioned fee activities of the management and to slop their highhandedness, the workmen have been victimized. Apart from that, when an inquiry was instituted, management tried to proscribe the inquiry officer try interference and a favorable report was obtained. Pointing oat to variant Segal activities of the management like entrusting the work to some independent contractor to get rid of workman and others and others, it is submitted that mere is no error as such committed by me Labour Court in so far as ordering for reinstatement and, when the workman has been victimized, he (sic) have been granted benefit of continuity of service as also back wages. The changes leveled against the workman were not proved as such learned Counsel has sought for allowing the petition filed by him and to dismiss the petition filed by the management.
In the light of arguments advance, the points for consideration is whether the finding of the Labour Court and that of the Inquiry Authority holding that the Charges are proved requires interference and, the award passed by the Labour Court reducing the punishment requires interference.
On perusal of the order in the domestic inquiry, what b noticed is on 16.3.1995 the workman had abused one Mr Kemparaj Urs and other Groan Leaden in a vulgar language and also indulged in illegal strike thereby paralysing the normal work in the factory. Further, it is also alleged there is breach of model standing orders and terms and conditions of employment. However, on issue 1 as regards the fairness of the inquiry held Labour Court has specifically given a finding that the inquiry conducted is fair and proper. What has been explained by the workman is mat (hey have formed the Union as there was ill-treatment meted out to fellow workers by the management and certain monetary benefits like dearness allowance and benefit of uniform was not extended. In this regard, several correspondence made between the management and the workmen is produced which depicts the fact that all is not well with the management and on commencement of the Union activities, this trouble has cropped up. In so far as imposition of punishment is concerned, Labour Court tits relied upon the circumstances in which the incident has taken place and formed an opinion that the order of dismissal is too harsh.
It is the argument of the Counsel representing the workman, as argued by the Counsel for the management it was not observed in the award that the punishment imposed was not shockingly disproportionate but the manner in which the workman was victimised when he got involved in union activities and questioned the management, by trying to substitute some independent contractor and removing the workman would say it all.
The submission of the Counsel representing the workman appears to be that on commencement of the Union activities questioning the various illegal activities of the management, petitioner/workman has been victimised It is also seen some letters have been issued to the management net to harass the workmen and to extend the benefits which appears also is the reason for the management to initiate action against the workmen. The strike initiated by the workmen is in the background that they were demanding their legitimate rights like dearness allowance and other benefits and not to ill-treat the workers.
On an overall perusal of the materials on record, though the inquiry is held fair and proper, but the fact remains, in the background when the workman resorted to using of abusive and indecent language against Group Leaders and resorting to strike that too with a justification expressing their grievances to the management, it appears management has taken stringent measure to get rid of the workman. In the circumstances, although the workman is involved in the activity of strike i.e., to say there is basis and back ground - only to protest the act of the management from unjustified acts against other fellow workmen and in not extending certain benefits, the award of the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement appears to be just. So far as payment of back wages is concerned, though it was argued that it shall only be from the date of the award of the Labour Court, but what is to be noticed is there was a reason for the workman to commence such an activity of expressing their legitimate demand and, when the workman has been victimised by way of dismissal, necessarily from that date he would be entitled for back wages. Might be nothing has been placed by the management that the workman was gainfully employed but it has also not taken any steps to prove that he was gainfully employed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in stead of payment of 20% back wages, management is directed to pay 25% back wages from the dismissal dare till the workman is reinstated.
Accordingly, petitions are allowed in part. The management shall pay back wages at the rate of 25% from the date of dismissal till the date wages u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be paid. Wages paid u/s 17B of the Act shall not be disturbed. The workman would be entitled to continuity of service. Order be implemented within two months.