AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Nayudu, J.—In this civil rule the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court, Assam, directing the reinstatement of Hardial Turi, a permanent workman of the Petitioner Tea Estate is questioned. The Management framed charges against the workman to the effect that he severely beat up his step daughter Dukhmi Turi on the 21st October 1958 and that she was brought to the hospital in an unconscious condition. It was further allege against the workman that in the past also he was found guilty of various kinds of misbehaviour and rowdyism by the Garden panchayat The second portion of the charge is vague and relates to some incidents which apparently were not made the subject matter of any charge at at but were sought to be used in support or the charge now framed, namely that he had beaten his step daughter.
The Management after holding a domestic inquiry held that his conduct in beating his step daughter severely, amounted to gross miscondact and violation of the standing orders and accordingly dismissed the workman. An industrial dispute was raised and the matter came up for consideration before the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after taking evidence and considering the same came to we conclusion that the incident complained against did not take place during the duty hours or in the premises of the management, that the workman was not on duty at the time, that the beating, was for a just cause for a father to control his daughter and this had no relation or connection with the working and discipline of the industry but this was purely a private incident. So holding the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court followed the decisions of ''Central india Coalfields Ltd. Calcutta v. Ram Bilas Shobnath reported in (1961) 1 Lab LJ 546: (AIR 1961 SC 1189) and set aside the order of the Management and directed that the work-sum be reinstated giving him the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
The main and important question that falls to be considered in this Civil Rule is whether the conduct attributed to the workman in beating his step daughter by way of correction could be held to amount to misconduct within the meaning of the Standing Orders, and whether it would have the effect of subverting discipline fat the establishment; for, if the incident is purely a private affair between a father and his child, the Management would have nothing to do with it and the incident would not have any effect on the general discipline obtaining in the Management. In such cases the authorities have laid down certain tests, namely whe-ther the action attributed to the workman was done on the premises of the establishment, whe-thar it was done during the working hours, whether the workman in question was at the time in the discharge of his duties as a workman of the establishment and whether it has any inti mate or direct connection with the performance of his duties as a workman in the establishment.
In this connection it would be useful firstly to refer to the case of (1961) 1 Lab LJ 546: (AIR 1961 SC 1189). In that ease the respondent had been employed by the appellant as a workman who performed his duties as an Underground munshi. A complaint was recived against the respondent from several other workmen in the appellant''s colliery that the respondent was guilty of rowdy and indecent behaviour at night on 5th June 1957. He went to the quarters of his co-workmen drunk and in a state of heavy intoxication. First he knocked violently at the door of Sarkar Babu, then at the door of Srivastava Babu and used dirty and filthy language of abuse. Then he moved to the door of Madhu Babu and began to tear down the screens and abused Madhu Babu. He then knocked at the door of Tulsi Babu who thought that there might be some accident and so he left his dinner and opened the door. The respondent then entered the room using filthy language and threw the articles in the room hither and thither. The neighbours then collected on the scene and with great difficulty took out the respondent from Tulsi Babu''s room. It was further alleged against the workman that he was a drunkard and was in the habit of causing nuisance to his neighbours. In this context their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Normally the standing orders would apply to the behaviour on the premises where the workmen discharge their duties and during the hours of their work. It may also be conceded that if a quarrel takes place between workmen outside the working hours and away from the workspot, that would be a private matter which may not fall within the provisions of such standing order. But in the special circumstances of the instant case it is clear that the incident took place in the quarters at a short distance from the workspot. Hence the action of the employer in dismissing such a workman must be held perfectly justified. It was further proved that unless the employer took some action against the concerned workman breach of peace among the workmen was threatened. The employer could not consider such a matter with complacence.
It follows from this decision that if a quarrel takes place between workmen outside the working hours and away from the workspot, that should be regarded as a private matter which may not fall within the provisions of the standing orders of the establishment. In the instant case the incident occurred between the workman and his step daughter. The suggestion in the case by both the workman as wed as by the Union representing him was that the step daughter was contemplating to run away with a koya boy of inferior caste against her father''s will and the workman administered the chastisement to her in order to control her. No doubt the indications on record are that the workman handled his step daughter rather brutally. But that by itself would not necessarily bring the case within the scope of the standing orders so long as the other conditions are not fulfilled, namely the connection with the establishment and the work that is being performed by the workman in connection with the establishment.
Reference may be made to the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, which related to a case of fighting outside a factory of the appellant. In interpreting Standing Order 28 (viii) of the appellant it was held in this case that it would be unreasonable to include within Standing Order 22 (viii) any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants became hot. In that contest their Lord ships of the Supreme Court made it quite clear as to the circumstances which should bring the case within the scope of the standing order and observed as follows:
In order that Standing Order 22 (viii) may be attracted, it must be shown that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim.
In the instant case we consider that the matter is purely a domestic one between the father and his step daughter in connection w(sic) the marriage of his step daughter. The father apparently as father and guardian must have considered himself justified in preventing an unsuitable alliance of his step daughter while the step daughter was insisting on entering into it. This can by no stretch of imagination be said to have any connection with the establishment or the work done by the workman in the establishment. In this connection we would like to point out that there may be a situation where some connection could be said to have been established. For example, if the father had chastised his daughter because she did not regularly do her work under the Management, or because she had gone earlier than usual in the work of the management, it might be quite reasonable, to hold that the action of the workman had been in connection with the work under the Management and in such a case his action might perhaps be regarded as a violation of the standing orders. Apart from the dispute being domestic, the occurrence took place in the house of the workman, where he was living with his step daughter.
Mr. Goswami strongly contended that many workmen are upset over this incident and expressed the desire that the workman should be sent away, but that is neither here nor there.
Mr. Goswami placed reliance on the cases of Workmen of the Shalimar Rope Works v. Shalimar Rope Works Ltd., Howrah, reported in 1953 Lab AC 584 : (1953) 2 Lab LJ 876 (LATI-Cal) and Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Mazdoor Union v. Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., reported in (1955) 2 Lab LJ 254 (LATI-Cal). These cases, in our opinion, have no direct application to the facts of the instant case and particularly much value cannot be attached to them in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the two decisions mentioned above. In the result, we feel that the workman could not have been properly dealt with under the standing orders on the facts of the instant case and that the presiding officer of the Labour Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Management in the case and directing the reinstatement of the workman.
We find that the incident in the instant case took place on the 21st October 1958 and the dismissal order was made on the 1st November 1958. It is not known whether the workman was employed elsewhere during all this period. It is unfortunate that although notices have been served on them, the Union has not chosen to enter appearance in this proceeding and this Court could not receive any assistance from. But the order of Labour Court regarding payment of back wages cannot be made in the circumstances of the case and we feel that that order should be modified to read as follows:
The workman should be paid the full back wages on reinstatement in the event of his not having been working elsewhere and, if he had been working elsewhere, that circumstance would certainly be weighed and that period excluded in the matter of his drawing emoluments from the Petitioner.
Subject to this modification, the Civil Rule is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.