AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
Both the writ petitions are directed against the same award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
(for short, ""the CGIT"") in I.D. No. 417 of 2001, dated 5.6.2006. W.P. No. 736 of 2008 is filed by the Management of M/s. Tamil Nadu
Magnesite Limited challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which the CGIT granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service
and other attendant benefits and W.P. No. 23508 of 2008 is filed by the workman challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which he
was denied the back-wages for the aforesaid period. The first writ petition was admitted on 9.1.2008 and the second writ petition was admitted
on 25.9.2008.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as the ""management"" and ""workman"", as the case may be.
Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the management informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the
workman has been reinstated in service without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition, but however on such reinstatement, he continued in
service and also retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition.
It is the case of the workman that he joined the service of the management during the year 1971. He was transferred from the Mines Section to
Auto Garage Section as Mazdoor. It is the stand of the management that the workman misbehaved with the Mines Manager when he was
discussing certain issues with the workmen and Foreman. The workman was placed under suspension and a chargesheet was given to him on
16.3.1994. He submitted his explanation on 18.3.1994. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman. It is upon the findings of the
Enquiry Officer dated 15.4.1994 the workman was dismissed from service after issuing a show cause notice.
The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) and the Conciliation Officer, as he could not
bring about mediation, gave his failure report to the Central Government. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Labour, vide order
dated 27.12.1996 referred an issue for adjudication. The reference made to the CGIT reads as follows: ""Whether the action of the management of
TANMAG in terminating the services of Shri I. Krishnan,T.No.707 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
The said dispute was taken on file by CGIT as I.D. No. 417 of 2001 and notice was issued to both parties. The workman filed claim statement
on 13.6.1997. The management filed a counter statement on 19.11.1997. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in by the parties. The
workman filed ten documents which were marked as Exx.W1 to W10 and on the side of the management, the enquiry proceedings and report
were filed which were marked as Exx.M1 and M2.
The CGIT on analysis of the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the workman was vitiated. Along
with the show cause notice the workman was not given the enquiry report, and thereby he was handicapped in giving an effective reply to the
enquiry proceedings. The CGIT also held that in the light of any lack of opportunity, the workman was handicapped in giving an effective reply and
was thereby prejudiced. The workman was also not allowed to examine his own witness and hence, it held that the enquiry was not fair and proper
and the charges are not proved.
It must be noted that in the counter statement filed by the management, the management did not reserve any liberty for leading fresh evidence in
case the enquiry was held to be vitiated. In the absence of such a plea made by the management, there is no obligation for the CGIT to grant
opportunity to the management.
The Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Another, has held that in the absence of an
employer seeking any opportunity, there is no obligation for the Labour Court to grant opportunity to lead evidence.
This Court finds that there is no case made out to interfere with the order of the CGIT in that regard and hence, W.P.No.736 of 2008 is
dismissed. Insofar as the denial of back-wages is concerned, in normal circumstances, the Labour Court when once it finds that the charges are not
proved awards reinstatement with full back-wages. But unfortunately, in this case the CGIT denied back-wages by stating that in the facts and
circumstances of the case there was no case made out for grant of back-wages. That is a very wrong approach on the part of the CGIT for denial
of back-wages. The CGIT should have assigned some reason, namely: that the punishment was interfered u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and therefore, there is a deprivation of back-wages; or in the alternative that the workman is a temporary or ad hoc worker; or in the
alternative the workman was gainfully employed during the said period. In the present case, no such reason has been adduced by the Labour
Court. But having regard to the fact that the management reinstated the workman and also allowed him to retire from service, this Court is of the
opinion that the workman is entitled to 25% of back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. W.P.No.23508 of 2008
stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
In the result, W.P.No.736 of 2008 is dismissed and W.P.No.23508 of 2008 is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are allowed to
bear their own costs.