Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1561
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
R. Venkatesan
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Another
W.P.NO.14275 of 2001
Decided On : 06-04-2010
For the Petitioner:C.R. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rajeswari, for R2 King & Partridge, Advocates.
The judgment established the importance of protecting the rights of trade union activists and emphasized the need to balance the rights of workers with the legal restrictions on industrial actions.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Trade Union Act, 1926 - [24.30, 24.36, 24.43, Section 309 IPC, Section 18 of the Payment of Bonus Act, Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an industrial worker and trade union activist, challenged the termination of his employment by the respondent corporation. The petitioner was accused of distributing handbills and threatening to commit suicide, leading to his dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were baseless and that the dismissal was unjust. It directed the payment of bonus to the petitioner and ordered the corporation to provide full wages and terminal benefits to the petitioner as if he had retired from service.
Issues: The key issues were whether the charges against the petitioner amounted to misconduct and whether the management's actions were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right of trade union activists to voice grievances and highlighted the restrictions on the right to strike under industrial jurisprudence. It also considered the legal implications of the petitioner's actions, including the constitutional protection of trade unions and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, modified the impugned award, and directed the corporation to implement the order within eight weeks.
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D.No.29 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore and to quash the Award dated 27.11.2000 made in ID 29 of 1996 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.
The petitioner has come forward to challenge the award of the first respondent Labour Court made in ID No.29 of 1996, dated 27.11.2000. By the impugned Award, the labour court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted on 8.8.2001. Pending the writ petition, in an application for direction for payment of backwages, this court initially ordered notice. Subsequently, the same was dismissed on 5.9.2003.
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation, which was earlier known as Pattukkottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation, Vellore. He was also an activist in the trade union in which he was a member. A charge memo, dated 29.10.1992 was given to the petitioner. He submitted his explanation. A domestic enquiry was conducted. Though it was claimed that the charges were not proved, he was punished and his annual increments were postponed for three years. He submitted his representations to the higher officials and drew their attention regarding the injustice meted out to him. Ever since he made the complaint to the Chief Ministers grievance cell, another charge memo was given to him on 10.6.1993.
3. In the charge memo signed by the General Manager, it was stated that the petitioner had distributed hand bills from 27.5.1993 onwards announcing that he will go on an indefinite hunger fast at the Muttukadai junction, Ranipet. He distributed the same to the public, thereby bringing disrepute to the corporations good name. He also gave a press release which was published in the "Daily Thanthi" on 29.5.1993 threatening that in the event of not cancelling the proposed punishment, he will jump from the top of the Collectors office and commit suicide. To that effect, he gave a petition to the District Collector. He was arrested by the police and a criminal case was filed against him. Even on that account, he brought disrepute to the name of the corporation. Therefore, the petitioner was charged for distributing handbills for going on hunger fast till his death and that he gave a petition to the District Collector that he will jump from the top of Collectors office to commit suicide. This news item had appeared in the "Daily Thanthi" newspaper. In the charge memo, they had referred to the specific misconducts enumerated in the certified Standing Orders as 24.30, 24.36 and 24.43 applicable to the corporation.
4. The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 16.6.1993. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. In the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charges. Thereafter, a provisional conclusion was arrived at and was communicated to the petitioner on 3.1.1995 proposing to impose a penalty. The petitioner gave his representation denying the charges. The petitioner had stated that only documents ere relied on by the petitioner and he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses. The police had registered a case under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide). On further enquiry, the police had closed the case. Therefore, he contended that there was no legal evidence against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, by an order, dated 10.3.1995, he was terminated from service.
5. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Vellore. As he could not bring about any mediation, the conciliation resulted in a failure report being drawn up dated 27.12.1995. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The said claim statement was taken on file by the first respondent as I.D.No.29 of 1996. Notice was i
