Bx: THE HIGH (3(‘)UR’1′()I~’K ARNA’mI< A A1' BANGALORE
Dated this the 29"' day of July, 2609
Before
THE HUMBLE MR JUSHCE HULUVADI G .. A'
Writ Petitions 3154/2305 c/w9438, 943% 944{h'—.3aflu?_:£?5VV (ii: ._
Between:
In WP 8154li)5:
Management of Mfs Integatcd Electric V
Company ?vt Ltd — by its ‘u *
Managng Brirector — Sri R Vgjayataghavan ”
Plat # 497-A, 4″‘Phase V ‘
Peenya Indutriai Area = » _ x g _ AA ”
Bangalore 560 058 " . iifetitioner (By Sr: K R Anansza % Ami: . .' . . 1 Sr! Seetl1éi'am appa . 2
23 1;–s.<.:/3, Vezhlaatagypa buigdiixg
Near Kéiikamba Tsnmple V
.. .. _ A Tv}i):;:saf-:11ai1i,«Ba:agaIi)i*é'57
2' 'C VCXQ Ugrappa
' ._ #.1;22_;, .101? Cvfiizbss Road
*3qiaha1ak$:tsi§§:fa P {3
B':mgal_i'oe – 560 086
" .% 3:13 msalatwad
C29}./Iuddappa Building
V' –Adi'Chunchaz1agiri General Stores
Behind Check Past, T Dasarahaiji
Bangaiorfi 560 GS"? Rexpczmdcnts
V' » gay Sr: K S Subramanya, Adv.)
In WP 9438!2fi05:
B G Nalatwad S/o Grangappa
35 yrs, (150 Ramaiah, # 103
5″‘ Main, Bhuvancshwari Nagar
T Dasarahalli, Bmtgalore 57
In W? 9439/2085:
Seethmmappa S/o Shankarappa
36 yrs, R/’a Dakkalapaili
Madakastra Taluk, Anantlupux District
Andhra Pmdesh 515 321 m
In WP 9440f2i)i35:
C Shivaram S10 Charmegbwda
40 yrs, R/a # 1, 17*
Bangalore 560 0825 3
(By sri K submmmi5ra;fA%
And:
Mamgemmx: of M35 Integrated Electric
Ltd, Plot #”49′)’~A, IV Phase
P¢£:nya ‘indusifisti mjea, 58
‘By its Exiamaging
‘i<:_R ;ix:§.;%§;5, gégiivi)
Croiss =:
3CNagax, *
. }.)éfi’Ii{}1.1:Bf 4′
Petmme}
Petitioner
Rcapondent
in WP 9438
9439,944£3.f6S
Thest; Fem: Petitions are mm under Art.226z’227 of the Constitution
Aééfirauyingjo quashfsci aside the award am: 1.9.2004 ‘m 11) 1631996; 2m996
* .._ai:c{1Z3f19f36 by the Add]. mm Court, Bamgaxm.
These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Cmzrt made
V ‘ ~ V _ 2 T ” ~ foliowing;
20% back wages and continuity of service. However, to
withhold three increments with cumulative efibct.
has filed WP 3254/2095. Subsequenfly,:}i1ixiiig’ g¢ndezac$éjo§__1i;¢’–ina£:e:r, A
workmen also filed petitions — WP: 943s;’9439oV_$nd ééqoxzoos
several documents pointing on: to the t of ‘nan_ ‘a=’v{go’:aié:’if”aé;’ io lwfii V
they have been ill-treated audio’ cux’b«..*:u’né aofivitiés’ aadi fiieir legitimate
dornand and, quostioning the management hm sought
for extension of wagoéi
Heard: the fine ipguiios.
Courgsei ..n:axiage1ncnt submitted mat the Labour
Com oughfngoti the finding of the Inquiry Dflicer and
a1so._§ihiex*ibrix1g {he order of dismissai passed by the Dsciplinary
the basis of morality is not permissible. Only in the event
A if passed is shocking to the conseienoc of the court, then
it ooixid Times charges were ievelied and are proved and
* .. Vi izoireason for the Labour Court to substitute its order while modifying
–. ti*:o of pusimhment. Accordingiy? in support of his argument, loaned
.. _ oomxsel has rethrreé to the decision nfiha apex Court in 280?’ HLLJ I28 – J
K Synthetic: Ltd Vs If P Agar-wd & As regards back wages ii is
submitted only from the date of the order of the Tiibsmalfiaholn” Court hack
3?”
not proved as such, teamed counsel has sought for ailowing tha .
by him and to dismiss the petition filed by the ma;}agernerst;’ ,. 4, “j p ‘
In the light of the arguments advanced, tiifi Ifitlfs *
whether the finding of the Labour Cout’t’–vp2:a.i£x§,t}1at “Gf—-thVe’ ‘V
helding that the charges are xeqaiifes the awasd
passed by the Labour Court tetpiitfis intcrferenczz.
On perusal 0f.vt§¥’§,.:D!:’€36f thug-. tvhat is noticed is on
253.1995 me -mamged is; strike by shouting indecent
slogans “”t1A1Ve” wprk in the factory. However, on
issue 1 as am ‘fan-nt:§s’«.._}.;f the inquiry held Labour Court has
” Vspeciti<j.'ai§§y a t§i1ki§:Ig,__t_hat the inquiry conducted is fair and pmpcr.
Vhnspbepn by the workmen is that they have farmed the Unier:
as t}i,«3.t5e'~.tr¢*as:'Viii:-fi:re:;'tz.a'iéV:1t meted cut to fellow workers by the managemexst
_ and benefits like deamtws ailowance and bczncftt of unffomrt
' K x ' xtatgxtetibled. In this regard, several cemespondenca made between the
and the workmen is produced which depicts the fact that all is
T fit}? well with the management and an cernmmccxncnt cf the Union activities,
tmublc has cmpped up. In so fm' as imposition of punishment is
ctzmcemcd, Labour Court has relied upon the circumstances in which the
W,
incident has taken place and formed an opinion Ehat the order efie
too harsh.
It is the argument ofthe eoumel ,a§
by the eeunsel for flue management it ev’a_§’ia<;t obsewied' ingrtiae the" V
punislmment imposed was not sheekizagky–:*.ius.g)rof5e1f1ior1ate'i::3t, manner in
which the workmen were involved in ufiion
activities and q11estig:_2ie<1_ ' to substitute same
independent eoxmeeter i§vn§?kVzV'::ieiiV'wotxid say it all. As per
the evidence feiievv worker was kept under
suspension and Vorder when they approached the
management, V11t;z1eees4§a:'yVValleégati6;:sVi%x3e made against the workmen stating
.i"i"1e3,§—Eeave assembty and went on strike
workmen, one Kulkmni who is the management
hirneeif spoken to the fact that after collecting the suspension
5 Went way.
u xfhe submission of the emmsel representing the workmen appears to
that on eemmeneement clef the Union activities questioning the varieus
iliegal activities ef the management, petitioners werkrnen have been
.,/
ggr
entiiied for back wages. Mighi be nathing has been
management that the workmen were gainfully employed.V};;ii’é;t. fun; _& V’
taken any steps to prove that they wen: -1′ “V ‘
However, in the facts and circumstmcés dfflté ca§c,_£t;..mediff£:9.£i£:vé3..
of the award ofthe: Labour Cenrt, it is tejsay .T5%’ix§1i’tcs }<§ct came to be paid. Wages paid under
's.–1?B-':.«$i*t1:¢~Actghau§§t"'bé'aasnube.d. The werkmen would be entitlad to
'£,Q:xtVit7:1_1it§,* be irrxplenaented Within two months.
Sd/-'y
Iudgé