The court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's finding that the workmen engaged in gross misconduct justifying their dismissal during industrial unrest, affirming the employer's right to take disciplinary action without a prior inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

“Every litigation has a moral and, these appeals have many, the foremost being that the economics of law is the essence of labour jurisprudence.” -Justice Krishna Iyer

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 25.05.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, whereby the Tribunal rejected the relief of reinstatement and all consequential benefits to 26 workmen, converted the dismissal orders into orders of discharge, and granted only monetary compensation— Rs.50,000/- to 5 workmen and Rs.70,000/- to 20 workmen.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that it represents approximately 415 workmen/technicians and had raised concerns regarding industrial unrest vide its letter dated 29.09.1999, addressed to the office bearers and members of the Executive Committee of the respondent-company. On the same day, upon raising the demands, the respondent-company suspended three members of the Union on the alleged ground that they had refused to perform the task of breaking sulfur and other duties that were previously carried out by contract labourers. Subsequently, all three workmen were reinstated into service based on an understanding arrived at in the presence of the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 20.01.2000.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that on 04.10.1999, the Union communicated to the management through a letter, requesting resolution of the issues concerning its members and informing that, with their consent, they would begin wearing black badges from 05.10.1999 as a mark of protest. The petitioner-Union also demanded the payment of bonus at the rate of 20% for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, vide communication dated 11.10.1999.

2.2. It is further the grievance of the petitioner-Union that the respondent-company declares paid holidays at the beginning of the year, and the same is communicated to each workman through their leave card. When the company desires that any technician should report for duty on a paid holiday, such technician is informed in advance, and written consent is obtained by the company. In such cases, the company used to pay double to the regular wages. The petitioner-Union, vide letter dated 03.11.1999, informed the company that the workmen intended to avail the paid holidays declared on 07.11.1999 (Diwali) and 09.11.1999 (New Year), and requested the company to make necessary arrangements accordingly. The petitioner-Union further conveyed that it had become compulsory for technicians working in regular shifts to work even on paid holidays, and those working in general shifts whose names appeared on the list published by the company were also required to report for duty on such days. Prior to these dates, the petitioner-Union had also raised a similar request for paid holiday leave for the festival of Dussehra, which fell on 19.10.1999. The petitioner- Union also issued a notice dated 04.11.1999 regarding the revocation of suspension of three workmen, namely, Kalpesh Patel, Ishwar Chavda, and Harish Rana.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that, as per the notice dated 03.11.1999 informing the respondent- company regarding the paid holiday on 07.11.1999, when the workmen went to join duty on 08.11.1999, they found