ORAL JUDGMENT :- The Industrial Court upheld in revision an order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman together with backwages quantified at 75%. The employer has challenged the order in Writ Petition 1103 of 2004 while the workman is before the Court in Writ Petition 3168 of 2004 insofar as a component of backwages was denied to him. For convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as the employer and the workman.

2. The workman in the present case joined the services of the employer as a loader on 9th March, 1987. It was alleged that on 16th October, 1990, the workman together with another workman by the name of Vincent led a mob of loaders at 3.00 in the afternoon to the office of the Area Manager and entered the office when the official was in a meeting with three other officials viz. Phiroz Batliwala, Poonawala and M. Menon. It was alleged that on entering the office, the workman together with the coworker, Vincent, demanded that the employer should pay a higher quantum of bonus to all the loaders. The Area Manager is stated to have expressed his inability to concede to the demand on the ground that the Head Office of the employer had already taken a decision in the matter. According to the employer, the Area Manager requested the workman and the others who had entered the office to leave and report back at their places of work. Allegedly, the workman and Vincent called upon all the assembled workmen not to leave the office. The allegation was that at the instigation of the workman and the other employee, the workmen who had assembled there committed acts of misconduct such as hurling of teacups, water jugs and a briefcase in the direction of the officers, injuring the Area Manager who sustained a bleeding injury above the eyebrow. It is alleged that when one of the officials, Poonawala, tried to contact the police for help on the telephone, the workman rushed to the official and snatched the phone from his hand, uttering certain words, in a threatening manner. In the melee, it was alleged that the workman damaged the telephone equipment. While leaving the office it was alleged that the workmen caused extensive damage to the typewriter and to the stationary items of the secretary and that several cars parked on the ground floor of the establishment were also damaged.

3. On 27th October, 1990 a notice to show cause was issued to the workman calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be adopted against him for acts of serious misconduct. The workman denied the charges. On 3rd November, 1990 a charge sheet was issued to the workman and to his co-worker, Vincent, by which they were charged of the following acts of misconduct namely:

"(i) Wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with another, of any reasonable and lawful orders of a superior;

(ii) Drunkenness, riotous disorderly or indecent behaviour on the , premises of the establishment;

(iii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment;

(iv) Wilful damage to work in process or to any. property of the establishment; .

(v) Instigating other workmen to behave rudely and violently and provoke them to damage the property of the Company:

(vi) Committing an attempt to assault on the Officers, Managers and instigating others or acting in furtherance thereof;

(vii) Entering the work premises unauthorisedly."

4. The workman and his co-worker were suspended from service during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

5. The departmental enquiry commenced on 4th December, 1990 and was concluded on 6th March, 1992. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 6th April, 1992. The enquiry officer held that all the charges, save and except for the charge of 'assault contained in the sixth head aforesaid had been conclusively established. A copy of the report was forwarded to the workman by the disciplinary authority and he was called up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document