JUDGMENT
Y. Venkatachalam, J.
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the award of the first respondent, dated August 13, 1993, and made in I.D. No. 323 of 1989, and to quash the same.
2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner-management herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of them argued the matter justifying the award passed by the Labour Court and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel preparing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties during the course of their arguments.
4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.
5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from their affidavit are as follows: The worker by name Prabhakaran, whose termination is the issue in this writ petition was working in the factory as a regular factory worker from November 1, 1969. During the month of March/April 1987, all the workers of the petitioner/management were involved in an agitation claiming 20 per cent. bonus for the accounting year 1985/86, as against the management’s declaration of 8.33 per cent. The workers resorted to all modes of agitation, including the prevention of loyal workers from entering the factory. This went on for about 21 days. Though the petitioner-management has categorically mentioned that their agitation is illegal and unjustified, no disciplinary action was taken on anybody. At last a settlement was reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on March 24, 1987. During the period of operation of the said settlement itself, a few workers continued their agitation. One among them was the said Prabhakaran. When normalcy was restored pursuant to the settlement and peace brought in, the said Prabhakaran went inside the factory on April 5, 1987 at about 6.15 A.M. and threatened a temporary worker, Chandran, of physical assault if he worked. When the temporary worker pleaded that he had to work for his wages, he had been abused by the said Prabhakaran in a filthy manner and was chased out of the factory through the rear gate. A complaint, dated April 5, 1987, was given by the said Chandran to the Factory Officer, Ranganathan. The said Ranganathan interrogated few workers from whom he found that the complaint of Chandran is a genuine one. Accordingly he forwarded the complaint to the management with a request for further course of action. On receipt of this, the worker Prabhakaran was served with a showcause notice, dated April 6, 1987, and, since no explanation was submitted, the chargesheet, dated April 18, 1987, was issued to him. An enquiry was conducted on April 27, 1987. But in the enquiry, the said Chandran disowned the complaint before the enquiry officer, saying that he had not given any complaint against Prabhakaran, even though he had admitted that the signature appeared in the complaint is his own. Based on this statement, the enquiry officer submitted his finding, holding that there was no material available for him to proceed with the enquiry and accordingly the enquiry was declared to be closed. In view of these findings, the management revoked its earlier order of suspension pending enquiry, thereby making the payment of full wages for the said period of suspension from April 8, 1987 to
April 30, 1987 and by an order, dated April 29, 1987, the worker was directed to report for duty from May 2, 1987. The above stated order, dated April 29, 1987, was issued to Prabhakaran through the Factory Officer and on seeing the contents thereunder the factory officer was shocked to note the statement of the said Chandran in the said enquiry held on April 27, 1987, and he felt that the said Chandran might have suppressed the facts for some obvious reasons. Hence he had chosen to give a fresh complaint against Prabhakaran asserting that he had got ample evidence to prove the incident. According to him the worker Prabhakaran had threatened the temporary worker Chandran to escape the consequences. The factory officer in his complaint has categorically stated that such negative methods adopted by the worker to nullify the legal process of proving the genuine complaint will hamper the general discipline and that he apprehended high-handedness by the delinquents to escape the consequences in future. He had further opined that the workers may not be able to act independently in such circumstances. The complaint was given by the Factory Officer in the capacity of his assignment as a Factory Officer for maintaining discipline and law and order. The complaint was served on Prabhakaran along with the showcause notice, dated April 30, 1987. In his explanation Prabhakaran denied the allegation. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, a chargesheet, dated May 13, 1987, was issued to the said Prabhakaran. A full fledged enquiry was conducted by the petitioner-management and the worker participated fully in the enquiry. All opportunities were given to the worker for defending himself, based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the enquiry officer has submitted his findings, dated July 11, 1987, holding the said worker guilty of all the charges levelled against him by the management under Standing Orders 23(1), 23(2), 23(3), 23(11) and 23(25). On receipt of the findings of the enquiry officer, the management carefully examined the same and found that the charges have been proved beyond doubt. It was also found that there prevailed no extenuating circumstances, and in view of the graveness or the proved charges, the management had decided to terminate the services and accordingly the order of dismissal was issued dismissing the petitioner with effect from July 28, 1987. The said dismissal led to Sri Prabhakaran raising an industrial dispute on the file of the first respondent-Labour Court which was numbered as I.D. No. 323 of 1989. The petitioner-management entered appearance and filed its counter-statement denying the allegations contained therein. After a detailed enquiry, during the course of which several documents were filed on behalf of the parties, the first respondent has since passed an award holding that the termination of the said Prabhakaran was invalid and directing his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved as against the award of the first respondent Labour Court and having no other alternative remedy the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
6. The impugned award is challenged by the petitioner-management herein on the grounds that the same is erroneous, contrary to facts and law and deserves to be set aside, that the first respondent committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the second enquiry was conducted on the very same facts and as such the dismissal was invalid, without appreciating the various aspects of the issue at hand, both legal and factual, and that the first respondent ought to have seen that the fresh enquiry that was ordered, was on a different footing altogether, involving a far greater threat to the discipline and the management of the business of the petitioner as would be evident from the withdrawal of the complaint in the earlier enquiry and the genuineness of which the factory officer had no doubts about, as he had satisfied himself fully well before seeking to initiate the enquiry. What was lost sight of by the first respondent was that the fresh enquiry was based more on the events subsequent to those which formed the basis of the earlier enquiry. The chargesheet was also issued to the delinquent employee based only on the complaint received from the Factory Officer and had nothing to do with the earlier complaint given by the co-worker. It is also contended by the petitioner that the first respondent ought to have seen that the gravity of the charges, contained in the complaint given by the Factory Officer which was the starting point of the fresh enquiry was far more grievous than the earlier one considering the fact that the very discipline that was prevailing in the industry was threatened leading to a logical apprehension by the Factory Officer who was to maintain the discipline. Inasmuch as the circumstances differed, the Labour Court grievously erred in not holding that the fresh enquiry was not a second enquiry on the same set of facts but one which was based on a different footing altogether. It is also their case that the withdrawing of the complaint by the complainant co-worker in the earlier enquiry could not be viewed leniently particularly considering the prevailing situation and the possibility of the co-worker being coerced into withdrawing his complaint. It is also his case that the first respondent erred in holding that the factory officer had no right to give a separate complaint and proceed further by way of initiating enquiry, when the co-worker who was alleged to have been threatened by the employee had himself withdrawn the complaint during the course of the earlier enquiry. It is also his grievance that a perusal of the paragraph where the evidence was analysed by the first respondent would clearly show that the first respondent had been sympathetically arguing the case of the employee. Thus it is the contention of the petitioner-management that the first respondent erred in analysing in proper perspective the materials on record. It is also their grievance that the award of the first respondent Labour Court led to a situation where the petitioner-management is now compelled to take back into service a person whose antecedents clearly constitute a threat to maintaining discipline prevailing in the petitioner industry. Therefore it is their case that the impugned award may be quashed.
7. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties the following are the admitted facts in this case. The charge levelled against the employee concerned herein is non-discipline.
He has abused a co-worker and also threatened him to come out of the factory during working hours and thus he has not maintained discipline. It is significant to note that there had been dispute between the management and the workers with regard to bonus issue and the agitation in this regard went on for about 21 days. At last a settlement was reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on March 24, 1987, and during the period of operation of the said settlement itself, a few workers continued their agitation. One among them was the worker in question, viz., the third respondent herein. It is categorically contended by the petitioner-management that when normalcy was restored pursuant to the settlement and peace brought in, the said worker went inside the factory on April 5, 1987, at about 6.15 A.M. and threatened a temporary worker Chandran of physical assault if he worked and when the said worker pleaded that he had to work for his wages he had been abused by the third respondent herein in a filthy manner and was chased out of the factory through the rear gate. Consequently as the said worker Chandran gave complaint to the management, chargesheet was issued to him and enquiry was initiated. But during the enquiry as the worker said that he has not given the complaint, the enquiry was dropped and also the suspension was revoked. It is significant to note that though he denied that he has given such complaint, he had admitted his signature in the said complaint. When this came to the notice of the factory officer, he felt that the said Chandran might have suppressed the facts for some obvious reasons. Hence he had chosen to give a fresh complaint against Prabhakaran asserting that he has got ample evidence to prove the incident, and according to him the worker Prabhakaran had threatened the temporary worker Chandran to escape the consequences. It is also significant to note that the factory officer in his complaint has categorically stated that such negative methods adopted by the worker to nullify the legal process of proving the genuine complaint will hamper the general discipline and that he apprehended high handedness by the delinquent to escape the consequences in future. Thus in
this case it is rightly contended by the management that the workers may not be able to act independently in such circumstances and that the complaint was given by the Factory Officer in the capacity of his assignment as a Factory Officer for maintaining discipline and law and order. Thereafter a full fledged enquiry was conducted and the worker in question also participated fully in the enquiry and all opportunities were given to the worker for defending himself. The enquiry officer submitted his finding, dated July 11, 1987, holding the said worker guilty of all the charges levelled against him by the management under Standing Orders 23(1), 23(2), 23(3), 23(11) and 23(25). On receipt of the findings of the enquiry officer, the management carefully examined the same and found that the charges have been proved beyond doubt and in view of the graveness of the proved charges, the management had decided to terminate the services and accordingly the order of dismissal was issued. Thereafter the matter went before the Labour Court but however, after enquiry the Labour Court passed an award holding mat the termination of the said Prabhakaran was invalid and directing his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service and aggrieved by the same this writ petition came to be filed.
8. In this case it is no doubt true that the earlier enquiry was withdrawn on a different footing. The charges levelled against the worker is serious in nature since the same is with regard to discipline and behaviour with other workers. Therefore, it is very clear that the charge-sheet was also issued to the delinquent employee based only on the complaint received from the factory officer and had nothing to do with the earlier complaint given by the co-worker. Therefore, it is rightly contended by the management that the Labour Court ought to have seen that the gravity of the charges contained in the complaint given by the factory officer which was the starting point of the fresh enquiry was far more grievous than the earlier one considering the fact that the very discipline that was prevailing in the industry was threatened leading to a logical apprehension by the factory officer who was to maintain the discipline and also that the Labour Court ought to have seen that the apprehension of the factory officer, viz., the complaint was logical and reasonable. It is also significant to note that the withdrawing of the complaint by the complainant co-worker in the earlier enquiry could not be viewed leniently particularly considering the prevailing situation and the possibility of the co-worker being coerced into withdrawing his complaint. Therefore it is significant to note that a greater threat to discipline was involved insofar as the fresh enquiry was concerned and the first respondent was erroneous in equating both the enquiries. Further as rightly contended by the management that the Labour Court erred in holding that since the factory officer was not affected in any way since the said worker had not abused, threatened or assaulted him and hence he had no right to give a fresh complaint. Such a line of thinking by the Labour Court in deciding the industrial dispute of the present nature is highly erroneous considering the facts of the case on hand that it is the factory officer who was in overall incharge not only of the production, etc., but also in the overall discipline that prevailed in the factory and was responsible for any indisciplinary action on the part of the workers. Therefore in this case it is very clear that the factory officer was entirely at right in initiating the fresh enquiry which per se was more grave in nature and also based on events subsequent to the action taken on the complaint of Chandran. Further the first respondent erred in analysing in proper perspective the material on record and also that the first respondent had contradicted his own finding accepting that the said Chandran was in the custody of the factory officer from April 5, 1987 to April 27, 1987 and also accepting the version of the said Chandran that he had given a letter to the union leader on April 20, 1987 to the effect that he had not given any complaint as against Sri Prabhakaran. Thus in this case it has been clearly pointed out by the petitioner-management” that the award of the first respondent is filled with such contradictions and more particularly omissions in analysing the entire facts and circumstances of the evidence on record. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner-management that the award of the first respondent Labour Court lead to a situation where the petitioner- management is now compelled to take back into service a
person whose antecedents clearly constitute a threat to the maintaining of discipline prevailing in the petitioner industry and taking back the person in question could only cause the petitioner-management irreparable loss, damage vis-a-vis the discipline in the industry. In the above facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I see every force in the above contentions raised by the petitioner- management. Therefore it is rightly contended by the petitioner-management that it is just and necessary to set aside the award impugned herein.
9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the learned view that the petitioner-management herein has clearly made out a case in their favour that the award of the first respondent Labour Court herein impugned in this writ petition is erroneous, contrary to fact and law and that therefore deserves to be set aside as prayed for. Thus the writ petition succeeds and the same has to be allowed as prayed for,
10. In the result the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. No costs.