IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Writ Petition No.18485 of 2000
THE MANAGEMENT OF URALIKKAL [ PETITIONER ]
ESTATE TATTA TEA ESTATE
REP. BY MANAGER
VALPARAI 642127
Vs
1 RAMAR
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE.
[ RESPONDENTS]
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent labour Court leading to the impugned award dated 27.05.1999 in I.D.No.315 of 1997 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayan for
M/s King and Patridge
For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran (R1)
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is the Management of a Tea Estate. They have come forward to challenge the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.315 of 1997 dated 27.05.1999. By the impugned award, the first respondent workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages with a cost of Rs.200/-.
3. Even before filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had reinstated the workman. Though it is stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that it was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to challenge the impugned award neither the order of reinstatement nor the order reserving their right to proceed with the case was not filed before this Court.
4. However, the writ petition was admitted on 02.11.2000. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner Management to deposit the entire back wages with the Labour Court to the credit of the I.D. It was inturn directed to reinvest the amount in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Coimbatore for a period of five years.
5. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the first respondent states that the order has not been implemented. Mr.Vijayan, learned counsel for M/s King and Patridge states that they would have definitely implemented the order. Even otherwise, in case if they fail to win the case, the workman is eligible for the amounts as payable under the award of the Labour Court.
6. It is seen from the records that the first respondent was engaged in the Estate. On 10.06.1996, a complaint was given by the Assistant Field Officer that the first respondent on night duty on 8th and morning duty on the 9th. It was found that the pump house was broken and the motor coil was stolen from there. The first respondent was charge sheeted on the grounds of negligence. An enquiry was conducted by the Management. After the Enquiry Officer gave a finding, the first respondent was given an opportunity to represent against it. Finally by order dated 22.10.1996 the first respondent was dismissed from service. It is also claimed that since dispute was pending before the National Industrial Tribunal at Kolkatta, an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was also filed before that Tribunal. The result of such approval application was not disclosed in the written statement filed before the Labour Court.
7. As against the dismissal the first respondent moved the Labour Officer. Finally on the strength of the failure report furnished, he filed a claim statement before the 2nd respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court took the dispute as I.D.No.315 of 1997 and issued notice to the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management filed a counter statement dated Nil (May 1998) before the Labour Court. With the consent of parties, 16 documents were filed by the Management and were marked as Exs.M1 to M.16. Though the first respondent raised contentions regarding the validity of the enquiry, finally before the Labour Court, he gave up the plea and decided to argue the matter on the basis of the materials already on record. This was recorded by the labour Court in passing the impugned award.
8. Before the Labour Court, the contention by the petitioner Management was that he being incharge watcher, he should have been careful enough to see that no such theft takes place within his jurisdiction. By not supervising the area under his control, he had failed to discharge his duty and hence liable for disciplinary action.
9. On the contrary, the first respondent brought a co-worker who was his reliever who also was leave on that day to depose the nature of work, the extent of area to be supervised and the normal routine duties attached to the said post. It was argued on the side of the first respondent that in an Estate of this magnitude, it is difficult to keep track on every theft that takes place and in respect of pump house the watchers used to make only one visit in the morning. From a distance, it is difficult to find out whether the pump motor was meddled or stolen. It was also stated that the Estate was surrounded by wild Forest. During night time, no one will venture unless in a group. Therefore, if there was any theft or meddling with the pump motor, it will be impossible for a watcher to find out. He also pleaded that he has taken reasonable precaution in doing his duty.
10. The labour Court accepted the version of the 1st respondent and held that going by the nature of the work as per the deposition of the co-worker, the finding of the Enquiry Officer rendered in this regard holding that the 1st respondent is guilty of the charges was not sustainable. There was no willful disobedience of a reasonable order of a superior. There was also no negligence of work involving loss to the Management. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court found that the 1st respondent was not guilty of the charges and granted the normal relief of reinstatement. It is this award which is under challenge.
11. Mr.Vijayan learned counsel appearing for M/s King and Patridge contended that having found the 1st respondent was responsible for the loss caused to the Estate, the award of the Labour Court if upheld will be a premium and the workman can get away without punishment. This will not only demoralize the discipline in the Estate but also will be a bad precedent.
12. However, this Court is unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Management. By introduction of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the labour Court has ample power to appreciate the evidence rendered in a domestic enquiry and come to a different conclusion if it so desires. The power of the Labour Court under Section 11-A has been explained by the Supreme Court vide its Judgment in The Workmen of M/s Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. vs. The Management reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227.
13. In the present case, the Labour Court had analysed the evidence placed before it and had accepted the version of the workman as well as the co-worker. It went by the nature of duties and found that it was impossible to keep track off each and every activity in the Estate. In the absence of any credible material placed before it, the labour Court did not accept the contention of the Management that the 1st respondent was guilty of either disobeying the orders of the superior or that he was negligent in duty thereby causing loss to the Estate. This Court do not find any infirmity or illegality with the impugned award. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not willing to interfere with the finding of fact rendered and the discretion exercised under Section 11-A. It is significant to note that the first respondent was restored to service even before the filing of the writ petition and has been in service since the last 10 years. No complaint about him during this period has been brought on record.
14. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran learned counsel disputed that the Management did not deposit the amount despite the order passed by this Court on 02.11.2000. If that is so, the Management should be directed to pay back wages to the workman. It is already stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the workman has already been reinstated in service. Therefore, the back wages shall be calculated as per the award and paid to the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount has already been deposited, then the workman shall withdraw the amount from State Bank of India, Main Branch, Coimbatore, with accrued interest without any further notice to the Management. Notwithstanding the payment to the workman, the Management is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards legal fees for appearing for the 2nd respondent.
15. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions.
rg
To
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
COIMBATORE