Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
I.E.L.Limited
Versus
P.O., Labour Court
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 144 of 1987 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 09, 1991
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(c) - Reference - Legality - Order of dismissal - Acquittal in criminal case - Effect - Standard of proof - Domestic enquiry - Mala fide, unfair labour practice or victimization - Discrimination - Past record - Gravity of misconduct - Reinstatement - Quantum of punishment - Judicial review - Section 11-A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company, owner of a factory engaged in manufacture of explosives at Gomia, dismissed five workmen for assaulting the Deputy Plant Manager within the factory premises during their shift duty hours. The workmen resorted to strike in protest. The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found the workmen guilty of misconduct but held that there was unfair labour practice and victimization on the part of the Management and awarded reinstatement with half backwages. The petitioner-company challenged the award.
Finding of the Court:
1. The reference made by the State Government was not bad in law. 2. The subsequent acquittal of the workmen in the criminal case did not render the order of dismissal non est in the eyes of law. 3. The standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is not as high as in a criminal case. 4. The Labour Court erred in holding that there was unfair labour practice, victimization or discrimination on the part of the Management. 5. The Labour Court was justified in finding the workmen guilty of grave misconduct. 6. In view of the gravity of misconduct, reinstatement was not justified. 7. The workmen were entitled to salary till the date of passing of the award.
Issues: 1. Whether the reference made by the State Government was bad in law? 2. Whether the subsequent acquittal of the workmen in the criminal case rendered the order of dismissal non est in the eyes of law? 3. Whether the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is as high as in a criminal case? 4. Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that there was unfair labour practice, victimization or discrimination on the part of the Management? 5. Whether the Labour Court was justified in finding the workmen guilty of grave misconduct? 6. Whether reinstatement was justified in view of the gravity of misconduct? 7. Whether the workmen were entitled to salary till the date of passing of the award?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government has jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if the demand for reinstatement is raised after the order of dismissal. 2. Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings against the employee on the basis of the same charges, as the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is not as high as in a criminal case. 3. The Labour Court erred in holding that there was unfair labour practice, victimization or discrimination on the part of the Management, as the findings were based on irrelevant considerations and the Management had taken steps to address the grievances of the workmen. 4. The Labour Court was justified in finding the workmen guilty of grave misconduct, as the assault on the Deputy Plant Manager endangered the life of the victim and other employees. 5. Reinstatement was not justified in view of the gravity of misconduct. 6. The workmen were entitled to salary till the date of passing of the award, as the order of dismissal was passed upon holding an enquiry which was not fair or proper.
Final Decision: The impugned award was modified to the extent that the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement, but were entitled to salary till the date of passing of the award. The parties were directed to pay and bear their own costs.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This application is directed against the award dated October 6, 1986 (pronounced on November 20, 1986) as contained in Anneuxre-4 to the writ application, passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City Dhanbad (respondent No. 1) in Reference Case No. 7/83 whereby and whereunder he answered the reference in favour of the workman by awarding a relief of reinstatement with half backwages.
2. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute.
3. The petitioner-company is owner of a factory engaged in manufacture of explosives at Gomia which is a public utility service within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, a protected place within the meaning of Bihar Protected Places Act and also comes within the purview of the definition of essential services within the meaning of the provisions of the Essential Services and Maintenance Act. The explosive area in the factory premises of the petitioner-company is the most sensitive area inasmuch dangerous chemicals prone to explosion are handled therein and the same is controlled by the Blasting Department of the petitioner-company. According to the petitioner, maintenance of utmost discipline and systematic functioning of the operations of the manufacturing plants of Blasting Department in an orderly manner is of vital importance for the safety of the plants as also the workers employed in such manufacturing operations.
4. Admittedly, the agreement was entered into by and between the Management and the workmen on or about March 20, 1980 commonly known as Work Reward Agreement as a result whereof certain incentives were granted to the workmen and the same continued for two years. In the year 1982, the Management installed a Rollex plant in the Blasting Department in order to boost up its over all production, as a result whereof more incentive wages were being received by the workmen for about three months. However, in the month of December, 1982, the said incentive was stopped by the Management to which the workmen protested.
5. Admittedly on February 22, 1983, the workmen resorted to strike. It is an admitted case that on that date one Sri Abhijut Chatterjee, the Deputy Plant Manager was assaulted by the concerned workmen within the factory premises in course of their shift duty hours without any provocation and in order to execute a pre-deter-mined decision on their part. Allegedly, Sri Chatterjee had to be hospitalised and a first information report was lodged by Captain A.M. Nautiyal, Security and Fire Officer resulting in initiation of a criminal case against the concerned workmen.
6. On the other hand, the case of the workmen was that at about 2 p.m. on February 20, 1983 they were holding discussions to present their case before the Management when words were sent to them to send 4-5 workmen at the Explosive Office. The representatives of the workmen who went to the office found Mr. Chatterjee, Deputy Plant Manager and Mr. Daljit Singh, Plant Superintendent, there and allegedly seeing the representatives of the workmen, Mr. Chatterjee became furious and started abusing them in filthy language. Allegedly, a counter case was instituted against Sri. Chatterjee and Sri. Daljit Singh. It appears from the demand raised by the workmen with the Management dated February 23, 1983 which has been made a part of the notification dated February 24, 1983 referring the dispute for adjudication to respondent No. 1, an allegation was made that Sri Chatterjee pushed down one Kashi Kumar, the workmen-representative and one of the concerned workmen and further caused injuries to Sri Pashupati Nath Singh (also one of the concerned workmen) by a knife. It was alleged that Pashupati Nath, Kashi Kumar and others were called by the Management for talks.
7. Admittedly, the strike continued for about two months. In view of the aforementioned incidence which took place on February 22, 1983, disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against the concerned workmen for
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
