Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4996
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
R. Govindarajan & Others
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchi & Another
W.P.No.14116 of 1996
Decided On : 23-11-2009
For the Petitioners:N.G.R. Prasad, Row and Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V. Karthick, R2, T.S. Gopalan and Co., Advocates.
Ratios:
a. Admission, to be used against the maker should be clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and without any scope for two interpretations and it should lead to a clear conclusion of admission.
b. While construing a document, the Court has to consider the entire text and not to take one or two sentences here and there and interpret it.
c. Admission is not conclusive of the fact admitted and it could be explained by the author.
d. Burden of proof is on the management to show that the workman indulged in such activities which are detrimental to the interest of the factory and as such, he is liable to be terminated.
e. When the dismissal of an employee is the result of victimization by the management, he is entitled for back wages
Headnote:(A)Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.11A-Service-Delinquency-Admission-Enquiry-Dismissal-Back wages-Interpretation of document-Petitioners were labour leaders and engaged in industrial dispute which resulted in settlement-Later, they were charged with inciting insubordination and threatening workmen-Petitioners expressed apology-Management took it as admission of charge and without enquiry dismissed them-Petition before labour Court was also dismissed merely on marking of document and without examination of witnesses-Order challenged in writ petition-Petitioners contended that the letter of admission was not an admission of delinquency by the petitioners and their dismissal without enquiry is bad in law-Management contended that in view of the admission of guilt, further enquiry is not necessary-Held, the document has to be read as a whole and not piece meal-When the letters are read as a whole, they are not admission of guilt-Witnesses should have been examined to explain the circumstances in which the letter was given and their real import-Principles of natural justice was violated and the management was vindictive in dismissing the workmen-Writ petition allowed and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with back wages.
(B)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.11A-Service-Delinquency-Admission-Interpretation of document- Admission, to be used against the maker should be clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and without any scope for two interpretations and it should lead to a clear conclusion of admission- While construing a document, the Court has to consider the entire text and not to take one or two sentences here and there and interpret it.
Admission to be used against the maker should be clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and without any scope for two interpretations and it should lead to a clear conclusion of admission. While construing a document for the purpose of deciding as to whether there was clear cut admission, the Court has to consider the entire text. It is not possible to take one or two sentences here and there and to come to a conclusion that there was admission. There should be an express declaration to qualify it as an admission so as to bind the party. Para 22
(C)Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.11A-Service-Delinquency-Admission-Effect- Admission is not conclusive of the fact admitted and it could be explained by the author.
Admission, though is a piece of evidence, it could be explained by the author. Admission made by a party has to be considered in the factual context of the matter. It is open to the party to seek an opportunity to explain the admission as otherwise, the matters would be decided on the basis of such admissions. Para 24
(D)Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.11A-Service-Delinquency-Admission-Enquiry-Dismissal-Burden of proof-Burden of proof is on the management to show that the workman indulged in such activities which are detrimental to the interest of the factory and as such, he is liable to be terminated.
There should be clear evidence produced by the Management before the Labour Court in support of their decision to dispense with the services of the employees without enquiry. The burden of proof was clearly on the management to show that the workmen were indulged in such activities which were detrimental to the interest of the factory and as such, they were liable to be terminated. It was not sufficient that they mark certain documents without giving an opportunity to the workmen to challenge the veracity of those documents. Para 30
(E)Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947)-Sec.11A-Service-Dismissal-Victimisation-Back wages-When the dismissal of an employee is the result of victimization by the management, he is entitled for back wages.
The second respondent mill is a unit of Sanmar Engineering Corporation. The unit is stated to be a profit making one. The termination is found to be an act of victimization and the alleged misconduct was a ruse to get rid of the petitioners from the service of the second respondent. Therefore, I do not find any exceptional circumstances in this case to deny full back wages to the petitioners. Para 56
This Writ Petition is directed against the common award of the Labour Court, Trichirapalli dated 11 January 1996 in Industrial Dispute No.25 to 27 of 1994 whereby and whereunder, the industrial dispute raised by the petitioners challenging their dismissal by the second respondent was dismissed.
Background facts :-
2. The petitioners were working in the second respondent establishment, having joined the service on 05.03.1984, 26.08.1985 and 05.03.1984 respectively. The petitioners were also involved in trade union activities to protect the interest of the workers.
3. During the month of November 1992, the second respondent Management introduced an incentive scheme which was found to be non-beneficial to the workmen. Therefore, the union resorted to a joint action against the management. There was a demand for ex-gratia over and above the statutory bonus. The Management immediately resorted to lockout under the guise of suspension of operation. It was followed by conciliation proceedings and ultimately, a settlement was entered into between the parties on 1 December 1992 under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act.
4. The dispute was settled and as agreed, the workmen reported for work on 3 December 1992. However, Mr. Ramesh, Personnel Manager of the second respondent Company insisted that the workmen should sign the settlement deed under Section 18
(1) as a condition for allowing them to enter the factory. Individual workers were not willing for such a course as according to them, they would enter the factory, wear their uniforms, punch card and then would proceed to sign the settlement. However, such a course was not agreeable to the management and as such, there was utter confusion. The petitioners persuaded the workers to sign the settlement. They succeeded in convincing the workers and accordingly, they attended the second shift. However, the management suspended the petitioners on 012. 1992. The petitioners were issued charge sheet on 212. 1992. In the said charge sheet, it was alleged that the petitioners have resorted to strike inside the factory and threatened the workmen and disobeyed the lawful orders of the superiors and thereby, committed an act subversive of discipline. The petitioners submitted their explanation. In the explanation, they have also explained the circumstances leading to the confusion and expressed regret about what had happened. The explanation was not accepted by the Management which resulted in issuing a second show cause notice. In the said notice, the Management stated that they were not convinced with the explanation and as such, they intend to impose punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioners submitted their explanation to the second notice wherein they have indicated that the incident was on account of the confusion and they were not responsible for the same. Petitioners also pleaded leniency. However, the management was determined to dismiss them and accordingly, an Order of dismissal was passed on 9 February 1993. However, no enquiry was conducted before such dismissal.
.5. The petitioners raised industrial dispute in I.D.Nos.25 to 27 of 1994 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court was of the view that there was a clear admission of guilt in the explanation submitted by the petitioners and as such, there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry by the second respondent and ultimately, the punishment imposed by the second respondent was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved, the dismissed workmen are before this Court.
.Submissions :-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice. According to the learned counsel, there was nothing like an admission in the explanation submitted by the petitioners so as to pass an Order of dismissal by the management without conducting enquiry. The learned counsel contended that the award of the Labour Court is perverse and the Court had approved the punishment awa
