Alleged commission of offence by the employee.

By G.O. Ms. No. 687, Department of Industries, Labour and Cooperation, dated 17th February, 1958, the Government of Madras referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, an industrial dispute between the workers and management of the Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., in regard to the question whether the dismissal of one Subbian was justified, and to what relief he was entitled.

The facts that led to the reference were these. At about 8 a.m. on 14th August, 1955, Venkatapathy, the Assistant Welfare Officer of the Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., was waylaid, belaboured, and a number of injuries were inflicted on him by lethal weapons. The injured man was immediately taken to the hospital, where he gave a dying declaration. In the dying declaration he mentioned that Subbian was one of the persons who had assaulted him. Venkatapathy, however, got well, though it is stated that some time afterwards he was murdered by some other person. Subbian was arrested on 14th August, 1955. In due course, the police charged him under section 324 read with section 148, Indian Penal Code, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 280 of 1955, by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate found him guilty of the offence charged, and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment. That was on 31st October, 1955. There was an appeal against the conviction to the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A. No. 14 of 1956. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment, dated 25th February, 1956, held that the charges against Subbian were not proved, and acquitted him.

In the meanwhile, that is on 19th September, 1955, the management issued a notice to Subbian, charging him with the misconduct above said, and directing him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Subbian was also suspended pending enquiry. The enquiry followed. On the 26th of January, 1955, the management came to the conclusion that Subbian was guilty of the offence of assaulting an Officer of the mill, and that he was no longer fit to continue in service. No action, however, was taken by the management in pursuance of the finding, as an industrial dispute, I.D. No. 13 of 1952, was then pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act then in force, it was not open to the management by themselves to take any disciplinary action against the worker during the pendency of the proceedings before a Tribunal. The management, therefore, stated that they would apply to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to affect the dismissal of the worker. On the 10th of February, 1956, the management applied to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to dismiss Subbian. That application did not come up for disposal before the Tribunal during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute. An award was passed in I.D. No. 13 of 1952 on the 25th of July, 1957. No orders however, were passed on the application under section 33 filed by the management. The result was that the ban imposed by section 33 was removed by the the termination of the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 13 of 1952 in July, 1957. In September, 1957, the management issued an order, dismissing Subbian from service. An industrial dispute arose as a result of such dismissal, and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, for adjudication, as stated above.

The Labour Court considered afresh the question whether Subbian was guilty of the offences charged, and came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of the same. The Court also held that the management had acted mala fide, and victimised Subbian in awarding the punishment. But, having regard to the strained relationship between the parties, the Court held that it was not a case for reinstatement of the worker, and permitted the management to discharge the worker by paying of his gratuity, the other discharge benefits to which he was entitled by reason of the services he had put in, and the back wages