Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
The Management of Trident Represented by its General Manager
Versus
The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court & Another
W.P.No.9023 of 2007
Decided on: 05-06-2012
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(A) (2), Standing Orders - [Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(A) (2), Standing Orders]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Management challenged the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and other benefits but without backwages. The workman was suspended and later dismissed for charges including improper parking of a hi-loader, abusing a supervisor, and consuming a soft drink bottle from bonded goods.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found the charges against the workman to be proved but held the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate. The court suggested negotiations for monetary settlement, which failed, leading to the modification of the relief of reinstatement to compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charges, proportionality of the punishment, consideration of past services, and the possibility of monetary settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges being serious, the question of looking into the past records may not arise. It also considered the Supreme Court judgments in Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited VS. N. Balakrishnan and RAM KANT MISRA VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS to determine the proportionality of the punishment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner Management to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards final settlement of all claims made by the workman, in lieu of reinstatement.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Management challenging the award dated 15.02.2006 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.612/2000. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without backwages.
3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 12.03.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Subsequently, on 09.07.2007, this Court directed the petitioner Management to deposit a sum of Rs.57,122/- representing the backwages within four weeks. On such deposit, the Labour Court was directed to invest the same in any one of the Nationalised Bank for a period of three years, with liberty to the workman to withdraw the interest at the interval of every six months.
4. In the application filed for direction to pay last drawn wages, this Court, by order dated 09.07.2007 directed the petitioner Management to pay last drawn wages starting from August 2007 till the disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for resolution of the dispute. But however, the parties are at variance and the matter has come back to this Court without being resolved.
5. It is seen from the records that the second respondent was working as a Driver in the petitioner Hotel since 12.03.1991. He was discharging his duties sincerely. He was also got award for regular attendance for over nine years. He was placed under suspension on 08.05.1999 pending enquiry. He was given a charge sheet cum show cause notice on 13.05.1999. The charges levelled against him was that while he was required to park the hi-loader bearing registration No.TN-21-Z-8115 next to Lufthansa Aircraft, namely Flight No. L.H 759 so as to load the packages into the Aircraft, he parked it in such a manner that there was a gap of two feet between the Aircraft and the hi-loader making it impossible to load the items. The second charge was that when the Supervisor, Flight Catering, requested him to park the hi-loader close to the Aircraft, instead of obeying his order, the workman abused the Supervisor in foul and vulgar language at the Airport in the presence of passengers and Airport staff. The third charge was that on 06.05.1999, around noon, he broke open the seal of a cabinet containing the bonded goods of the Airlines and took out a soft drink bottle and consumed it.
6. The petitioner denied the charges vide his explanation dated 21.05.1999. In his explanation, he has stated that for over three months, there was a leakage of oil from the Hydraulic Cylinder, when the platform was raised to the Aircraft door and hence, the platform was raised up to one feet below the Aircraft door. He also brought this problem to the notice of the authorities. He further explained that the hi-loader could be lifted upto two feet below the Aircraft door, since the oil in the tank was insufficient. He further submitted that catering items were being loaded and that the workers were not totally stopped. He also stated that the vehicle was driven by one Poovalingam and he had gone to the Hotel to get the oil. The other allegations levelled against him were denied.
7. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the petitioner Management examined three witnesses namely Mr. Ghyas Alam, Mr. Poovalingam and Mr. Thirumalai Kumar and also marked 9 documents as Exs.M1 to M9. The workman examined himself as D.W.1. The statement given by the workman was marked as Ex.D1. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 22.01.2000 has held that the charges levelled against the workman have been proved.
8. The petitioner Management issued a second show cause notice on 24.01.2000. After receiving his explanation dated 10.02.2000, the petitioner Management dismissed him from service on 05.04.2000. The petitioner Management also sent a
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
