BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17/08/2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
WRIT PETITION (MD) No.515 of 2004,
WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.516 of 2004,
7415 and 7416 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.486 and 487 of 2007
W.P.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2004
The Management,
C.A.V.Cotton Mills,
Vella Bommanpatti,
Vadamadurai,
Dindigul
through its General Manager .. Petitioner in Writ
Petitions.
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Complex,
Tiruchirappalli. .. 1st respondent in
W.P.(MD)Nos.515 and
516 of 2004
2.P.Balasubramanian .. 2nd respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.515 of 2004
3.P.Muniappan .. 2nd respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.516 of 2004
Writ Petition (MD) No.515 and 516 of 2004 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in Industrial Dispute 25/97, 26/27 quash his award dated
22.3.2004.
W.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416 of 2005
P.Balasubramani .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No.7415 of 2005
P.Muniyappan .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD)
No.7416 of 2005
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Trichirappallai.
2.The Management of
C.A.V.Cotton Mills Ltd.,
Vella Bomman Patti,
Dindigul. .. Respondents in
W.P.(MD)Nos.7415 and
71416 of 2005
Writ Petition (MD) Nos.7415 and 7416 of 2005 filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records pertaining to the preliminary award dated 21.10.2003 and also the
final award dated 22.3.2004 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.25/97 and
26/97 respectively insofar as holding that the charges against the petitioners
were proved and on that ground, denying him back wages and other attendant
benefits and to quash the same and for a direction to the second respondent to
reinstate him with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant
benefits and award costs.
!Mr. T.Ravichandran ... for petitioners in W.P.
(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2004
and for 1st respondent in
W.P.(MD)Nos.7415 and 7416
of 2005
^Mr.S.Arunachalam ... for 2nd respondents in
W.P.(MD)No.515 and 516 of
2004 and for petitioners in
W.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416
of 2005
:ORDER
Writ Petition (MD) No.515 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner
management (hereinafater referred to as “the management”) against the Award of
the first respondent/Labour Court made in I.D.Nos.25/2007 dated 22.3.2004 by
which the second respondent/ P.Balasubramani(hereinafter referred to as “the
workman”) was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits but without back wages.
2. W.P.(MD)No.7415 of 2005 has been filed by the workman P.Balasubramani
against the very same Award in denying back wages to him.
3. W.P.(MD)No.516 of 004 has been filed by the writ petitioner Management
against the Award dated 22.3.2004 of the 1st respondent Labour Court in
I.D.No.26/1997 in granting relief to one P.Muniyappan (hereinafter referred to
as “the workman”) insofar as the grant of relief of continuity of service and
other attendant benefits but without backwages.
4. In W.P.(MD)No.7416 of 2005, the said workman P.Muniyappan challenges
the very same Award in I.D.No.26/1997 insofar as denial of backwages to him.
5. In view of the interconnectivity between the two Industrial Disputes as
well as the Writ Petitions, all the Writ Petitions are taken up together for
disposal and a common order is being passed.
6. Heard the arguments of Mr. T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the
Management and Mr. S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the workmen and have
perused the records.
7. It is seen from the records that before filing of the Writ Petitions,
the management offered employment to the workmen by letters dated 2.7.2004 but
it was in a Windmill owned by the management in Kethanur in Coimbatore District
and in case of workman P.Muniyappan, it was also in a Windmill at Nagercoil.
The workmen refused to accept the same because there is no question of going to
work at a place where they were not previously employed.
8. Subsequently, by an order dated 9.3.2005 in W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.969 and 970
of 2005 in W.P.No.515 and 516 of 2004, this Court ordered payment under Section
17-B of the I.D.Act to be paid to the workmen. As against the said order the
management filed W.A.(MD)Nos.202 and 203 of 2005 wherein a Division Bench of
this Court directed the management to provide work to the workmen in a similar
cotton industry.
9. Since the Writ Petitions are being heard on merits, this Court is not
inclining to go into the allegations as to whether the workmen were genuinely
offered employment or the workmen were not inclined to accept the offer and that
that is relegated to a future dispute between the parties.
10. A preliminary Award was passed by the first respondent/Labour Court on
21.10.2003 by holding that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent
workmen have been held properly and there is no infirmity in the procedure
adopted by the petitioner. Even though in W.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416 of 2005, the
preliminary Awards were under challenge, Mr. S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for
the workmen did not seriously press his claim in attacking the preliminary Award
and he concentrated more on sustaining the merits of the two Awards.
11. In terms of the relief granted to the workmen, it is seen from both
the cases that the workmen were charge sheeted by an order dated 3.8.1996 and
they were marked as Ex.M.2 by the Labour Court. The graveman of the charge
against the two workmen were that they prevented co-workers from attending to
their work and they threatened them that should they defy bombs would be thrown
at them. But, this relates to an incident dated 22.7.1996 and it is not
explained as to why the management took 12 days for framing the charge sheet
considering the gravity of the charge.
12. However, the learned counsel for the workmen brought to the notice of
this Court that in a reply dated 3.8.2006 sent to the workmen’s notice, there
was no whisper that the workmen have indulged in grave misconducts as alleged in
the charge-memo dated 3.8.1996. The first respondent Labour Court on an
analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion in I.D.Nos.25/1997 and 26/1997
dated 22.3.2004 that charges levelled against the workmen were proved. But,
however, that immediately after the incident that took place on 22.6.1996, the
workmen were not placed under suspension. Even the management witness, M.W.2
did not mention any thing about the threat of throwing bombs if the workers had
attended to their duty. It was also held that the delay in framing charge sheet
throws suspicion. If the workmen had used some abusive words that cannot be
taken as threatening words and it is not such a serious
allegation so as to inflict the punishment of dismissals. It also categorically
found that the management had exaggerated an ordinary incident and magnified it
to appear as a serious misconduct. It also held that the withholding of back
wages can be a sufficient punishment.
13. However, the first respondent Labour Court did not apply the correct
position of law. In para 10 of the Award, after referring to the decisions of
the Calcutta High Court, it held that the Court cannot re-appraise the
evidence as if it is a original Court or an Appellate Court and the jurisdiction
is that of a revisional jurisdiction. After holding that the enquiry is proper
and the findings are not perverse and the evidence let in during the course of
domestic enquiry cannot be reappreciated. It also went to the extent of stating
that the management allowing another co-worker by name Gopal, a similarly charge
sheeted workman, cannot be taken advantage by these two workmen.
14. All the three findings of the Labour Court are completely at variance
with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 11-A
of the I.D.Act. In fact, the Labour Court in deciding the preliminary issue is
only entitled to go into the fairness of the enquiry and mostly procedural
aspect of the enquiry. Once it is held that the enquiry is fair and proper,
then the Labour Court had to act like an appellate Court and it has been given
the power to re-appreciate the evidence already recorded and come to a different
conclusion [see Firestones’ [1973(1) LLJ 278]. In the same way, the finding
that another workman similarly charge sheeted cannot be a relevant factor in
considering the discrimination meted out by the management while charge sheeting
the workmen. However, going into the details of these issues for the present
are not relevant.
15. This Court is of the opinion that the Award of the Labour Court does
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Labour Court has correctly come
to the
conclusion that the charge against the workmen were exaggerated and the
management was at fault by not framing a charge sheet as the earliest point of
time and for the charge relating to threatening with throwing of bombs was not
made proved even as per the oral evidence of MW.2. But insofar as the charge
that the workmen prevented the co-workers from going to work, the finding of the
Labour Court is that the charge was found proved but it warrants only a lesser
punishment. The Labour Court depriving the back wages is a sufficient
punishment for the proven charges.
16. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in rejecting the arguments of
both the learned counsel for the management and the workmen. All the Writ
Petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Interim
stay already granted is vacated and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. The writ petitioner/management is hereby directed to reinstate the
workmen in the same place and the posts in which
they were working at the time of their dismissal and also pay wages from the
date of Award till the reinstatement after giving due credit to the payments if
any made under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act.
asvm
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Complex,
Tiruchirappalli.