AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—The Respondents 2 to 11 herein were the Workmen under the Petitioner-Management. The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company. The Petitioner is running a Spinning Mill. The Respondents 2 to 11, according to the Petitioner-Management, indulged in illegal strike from 22.6.1997. Thereafter, on 13.8.1997, it is alleged that the Respondents 2 to 11 tied rope across the road near the Factory Gate and prevented the ingress and egress of the other Workmen as well as the materials into the Mill. On the same day, they had threatened one Vidyasagar, who was working as a Supervisor under the Petitioner-Management and used abusive language against him. Based on these allegations, a charge-sheet was issued to the Respondents 2 to 11 by the Management on 18.8.1997. An enquiry was held into the said charges by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a Report dated 19.2.1997 holding that all the charges stood proved. Based on the said Enquiry Officer''s Report, yet another Show Cause notice was issued to the Respondents 2 to 11 and finally, after having considered the report and all the other relevant materials, the Management issued the Order of Dismissal dismissing the Respondents 2 to 11 from service with effect from 30.6.1998. Challenging the said Dismissal Order, the Respondents 2 to 11 raised Industrial Disputes in I.D. Nos. 267 to 276 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. In the said Industrial Disputes, the Respondents 2 to 11 herein contended that the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer was not fair and proper. They also contended that the charges were baseless and there were no materials to prove the charges. They finally contended that assuming that even the charges were proved, the nature of the charges did not warrant punishment of dismissal from service.
The Labour Court found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly. The Labour Court after having considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and all the other connected records, ultimately, passed a Common Award in all the above Industrial Disputes on 4.2.2003.
In the said award, the Labour Court found that the strike indulged by the Respondents 2 to 11 was illegal. The Labour Court further held that the Workmen had committed misconduct as alleged in the charges. The Labour Court also found that the Management had not initiated Disciplinary action against the Workmen with a view to wreck vengeance on them. Thus, having concurred with the view taken by the Management, the Labour Court found them guilty of misconduct.
In Paragraphs 19, 21, 22 & 24 of the Common Award, the Labour Court also held that the dismissal of the Workmen is correct and justified. However, in the last Paragraph of the Award, the Labour Court held that on humanitarian grounds, the Workmen were entitled for compensation. In such view of the matter, in respect of three permanent Workmen by name Krishnakumar (R4), N. Gunasekaran (R7), and Damodaran (R9), the Labour Court directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- each as compensation. In respect of four other Workmen by name M. Sundararajan (R2), K. Duraisami (R6), D. Subramaniam (R8) and R. Devaraj (R11), the Labour Court directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- each as compensation since they are only probationary Workmen and in respect of three Trainees, namely, M. Ramakrishnan (R3), N. Nagaraj (R5) & M. Vasudevan (R10), the Labour Court directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each as compensation.
Aggrieved over the above Common Award directing the Management to pay compensation to the Workmen, the Management has come up with the Writ Petition. In this Writ Petition, notice was ordered to the Respondents 2 to 11 by this Court by Order dated 7.10.2003. Notice was duly served on the Respondents 2 to 11 on 5.12.2003. But they have not made appearance before this Court. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing on 30.4.2013, since the Respondents did not appear, the matter was adjourned. Again, when it came up for hearing on 5.6.2013, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner requested for adjournment, however, the Respondents 2 to 11 were not present. When this Writ Petition finally came up for hearing on 6.6.2013, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made his arguments. But the Respondents 2 to 11 were not present. However, with a view to afford yet another opportunity to them, the matter was ordered to be listed today i.e. on 11.6.2013. Today, the Respondents 2 to 11 have not made appearance before this Court. It appears that the Respondents 2 to 11 have got no interest to prosecute the matter. Therefore, I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in full and also perused the records carefully.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that having come to the conclusion that the enquiry against the Workmen was held fairly and properly, the strike was illegal, the Workmen had committed misconduct as alleged against them, the Management had not initiated action as a vindictive measure and also having come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the Workmen is correct in law, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered for payment of Compensation on humanitarian grounds. The learned Counsel would further submit that such a sympathy is misplaced and the same is not legal. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also submit that u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, no such power has been given to the Labour Court to order for payment of Compensation on humanitarian grounds, after having come to the conclusion that the dismissal is sustainable in law. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and another decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar,
I have considered the above submissions and I have also gone through the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited supra.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Labour Court has found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly, the strike was illegal, the Workmen had committed misconduct and that the action of the Management is not a measure of vindictive action. The Labour Court in Paragraphs 19, 21, 22 & 24 has categorically come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the Workmen is very appropriate in law. It is not as though the Labour Court had found that the dismissal is not sustainable in law. Having come to the conclusion that the dismissal is strictly in accordance with law which does not require any interference at the hands of the Court, it is not at all open for the Labour Court to order for payment of Compensation on humanitarian grounds. In this regard, I may refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, as referred to above wherein in Paragraph 29, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
This Court has come a long way from its earlier view points. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed that how discipline at the workplaces/industrial undertaking received a set back. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers unless an appropriate case is made out therefor. The Tribunal being inferior to that of this Court was bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are applicable to the fact of the present case in question. The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the same.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, cited supra.
A cursory glance through the above two judgments, in the light of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, would make it very clear that in the event, the Labour Court is satisfied that the Order of Dismissal was not justified, then, by its Award, it may set aside the Order of Dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the Workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.
But, in this case, the Labour Court had not recorded satisfaction that the dismissal is not justified. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court has not even set aside the dismissal of the Respondents 2 to 11. As has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in Paragraphs 19, 21, 22 & 24, the Labour Court has categorically recorded the satisfaction that the dismissal is justified. Having recorded so, it is not open for the Labour Court to order for compensation on humanitarian considerations. The Industrial Disputes Act does not empower the Labour Court to order for payment of compensation on such humanitarian considerations. In such view of the matter, the common award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to the extent, it directs the Petitioner-Management to pay compensation to the Workmen alone, is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Common Award of the 1st Respondent, namely, the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to the extent, it directs the Petitioner-Management to pay compensation to the Workmen alone, is set aside. No costs.