IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 21599 of 2000(U)
1. K.RAMACHANDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
For Respondent :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
O.P.Nos.21599 & 21630 OF 2000
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
These two original petitions are filed by the workmen
involved in the two industrial disputes challenging identical but
separate awards in the two industrial disputes, namely
I.D.Nos.59/96 and 55/96 before the Labour Court, Kannur. A
joint domestic enquiry was conducted by the management on
allegations of serious misconduct, in which both were found
guilty. Based on the findings in the enquiry, the workmen were
dismissed from service in view of the gravity of the misconducts
committed by them. Against their dismissal, the workmen raised
industrial disputes, which resulted in the impugned awards.
Before the Labour Court, the workmen had no case that the
enquiry itself was vitiated for want of compliance with the
principles of natural justice. Their only contention was that there
was no sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to find them
guilty. The Labour Court discussed the evidence elaborately
and came to the conclusion that the guilt against the workmen
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 2
had been properly proved. Since the Labour Court was also of
the opinion that the proved misconducts were serious enough
to warrant punishment of dismissal, by the impugned awards,
the Labour Court held that the dismissal of the workmen were
justifiable and they are not entitled to any relief from the
management.
2. The charges against the workmen were that they
along with some other workmen attacked the Estate Manager
causing grievous injuries to him as a result of which he was
hospitalized. The contention of the learned counsel for the
workmen is that apart from the interested testimony of the
wife of the alleged victim there was no other independent
evidence to prove the charges against the workmen. The
learned counsel further points out that in that enquiry they had
specifically proved that the manager had previous enmity with
the workmen since they had reported illegal felling of trees by
the Manager which resulted in a forest case registered against
the manager by the forest authorities. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the manager had reason to
fabricate the case against the workmen, which only resulted in
the enquiry and subsequent dismissal. They would further
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 3
contend that subsequently in the criminal case charged against
the workmen, they were acquitted by the concerned criminal
court which would also go to show that the workmen were
innocent of the charges.
3. On the other hand, the contention of the
management is that there was sufficient evidence in enquiry to
find the workmen guilty of the charges as found by the
Tribunal and there are no grounds for interference with the
awards.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
The charge against the workmen was that at 7 a.m. on
19.1.95 when the Manager of the Estate was opening of the
Estate office, the workmen along with some others beat the
manager with sticks and iron rod and inflicted serious injuries
on him. This incident was witnessed by the wife of the
Manager. He was immediately taken to the hospital with the
help of another employee and a neighbour of the Manager.
The doctor examined the manager at 8 a.m. He was treated
for serious injuries including fracture.
5. The Labour Court noted the fact that the incident
was at 7 a.m. early in the morning and the manager was
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 4
hospitalized at 8 `O’ Clock. There was medical evidence to
prove the injuries caused to the manager. An employee and
the neighbour with whose help the manager was hospitalized
were also examined in the enquiry, apart from the wife of the
manager all of whom deposed in support of the charges
against the workmen. When the fact of serious injuries to the
manager was proved and the fact of his having been treated
for very serious injuries immediately after the incident were
also proved by the medical evidence. That itself, a long way in
proving the charges against the workmen especially when both
the victim and victim’s wife categorically gave evidence to the
effect that it was these workmen along with others who
attacked the manager. Then the only question that would arise
would be whether the manager and the wife had any bad
motive against the workmen to fabricate the case against
these workmen. Of course, the workmen had brought in a
case of previous enmity of the manager against them. That
case was specifically examined by the Labour Court. The
Labour Court found that although a forest case was charged by
the forest authorities against the manager for cutting trees
from the estate, there was no evidence to show that the
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 5
registering of that case was on the information furnished by
the workmen. On the other hand, the Labour Court found that
the workmen themselves admitted that they along with others
had demanded the manager to post them in another field for
work. It was refused by the manager, in respect of which the
workmen had harboured grudge against the manager. The
contention of the workmen was that the manager had fallen
down from the steps which resulted in the injury. But the
medical evidence was to the effect that the injuries caused to
the manager were akin to those which would have been caused
on account of use of an iron rod. It was also proved that at
the relevant time, the workmen had with them weapons which
were necessary for their work. The fact that the wife of the
manager was one of the witnesses does not in any way lessen
probative value of the evidence adduced by her especially
since the evidence is in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry
officer is not expected to look at the evidence as in a criminal
case. It is settled law that any evidence which would appeal to
a prudent man would be good evidence in a domestic enquiry.
Even hearsay evidence would be good evidence. Further, both
the workmen admitted that immediately after the incident,
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 6
they were absent from duty. Although they tried to set up a
case that they were on leave, that defence was disbelieved by
the enquiry officer as well as the Lbaour Court. Here, the
evidence adduced before the enquiry officer clearly suggested
a clear case against the workmen. I do not find any perversity
in the findings of either the enquiry officer or the Labour Court.
I am of opinion that the evidence available with the Labour
Court was more than sufficient to return a verdict of guilt
against the workmen. The proved charges being assault
against a superior officer causing him very grievous injuries
and there are no extenuating circumstances also in favour of
the workmen the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be
disproportionate and not in any way shockingly
disproportionate, which is the test to be applied for deciding
the validity of punishments imposed by a management.
Therefore, I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the
impugned awards. As such, there is no merit in these original
petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 7