Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ.
M/s. MRF Ltd., Rep., by the Plant Head, Arkonam - Appellant
Versus
P.N. Ravinder & Another - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 1332, 1333, 1335 & 1340 of 2019 & C.M.P. Nos. 9119, 9124, 9129 & 9194 of 2019
Decided On : 22-04-2019
For the Appellant :Sanjay Mohan, S. Ramasubramaniam, Advocates.
For the Respondent:V. Prakash, Senior Counsel, assisted by K. Sudalaikannu, Advocate.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A and 17-B - Dismissed from services - Acts of misconduct - Challenged - Appellant/Management was aggrieved by award in its entirety and respondent/workmen were aggrieved by that portion of award which denied 50% back wages - Appellant/Management by orders dated dismissed respondent/workmen from services - Allegation against respondent/workmen was that they threw stones indiscriminately on company bus, which was engaged to pick up the workers of the factory - Respondent/workmen has rendered holding disciplinary action in form of domestic enquiry an added risk and the Management will not be in a position to ensure safety of witnesses and other workmen, if enquiry is conducted by it - Further, it was stated that in the event the respondent/workmen proceeding to have the issue of their non-employment adjudicated in a Court of law, Management will be in a position to establish acts of misconduct indulged by them by examining witnesses in the security of Labour Court or such other forum, as may be proceeded -Held, it was contended that learned Writ Court ought to have moulded relief - It may not be necessary for Court to go into factual scenario in said decision which pertains to an educational institution where charge was that employee assaulted Principal of institution with a chappal and on facts of said case, an observation was made as to how a balance has to be struck while considering interest of workmen and that of establishment in view of change in economic policy of country - Court are of view that said decision can be of no assistance to case of the appellant - It was well open to appellant/Management to comply with award, but they chose to challenge award by filing writ petitions before this Court - Order to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Act was complied with by Management - Writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned order dated - Thus, time taken in these judicial proceedings cannot be put against the workmen to state that they will be unfit for being re-employed at this juncture - In any event, they are workmen and the appellant/Management has a policy of recruiting apprentices, who are given on job training by appellant/Management to be later on absorbed as regular employees - In result, these writ appeals fail and they are dismissed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. These appeals have been filed by the Management of MRF Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) challenging the common order dated 18.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.27159, 25426, 25425, 27160 respectively.
2. W.P.Nos.27159 and 27160 of 2011 were filed by the 1st respondents in W.A.Nos.1332 and 1340 of 2011, who were the workman of the appellant/Management.
2.1. W.P.Nos.25425 and 25426 of 2011 have been filed by the appellant/Management.
2.2. All the writ petitions challenge the correctness of the common award dated 05.04.2011 passed in I.D.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, the 2nd respondent herein.
3. The Labour Court by the award dated 05.04.2011, directed reinstatement of the respondent/workmen with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% back wages. The appellant/Management was aggrieved by the award in its entirety and the respondent/workmen were aggrieved by that portion of the award which denied 50% back wages. The appellant/Management by orders dated 18.03.2004, dismissed the respondent/workmen from services. The allegation against the respondent/workmen was that they threw stones indiscriminately on the company bus, which was engaged to pick up the workers of the factory on 11th March, 2004. The order of dismissal stated that the acts of serious violence indulged by the respondent/workmen are serious acts of misconduct, as a result of which, they have endangered lives of fellow workmen and injured the driver apart from damaging the company’s properties.
4. It was further stated that the very nature of the conduct of the respondent/workmen has rendered holding disciplinary action in the form of domestic enquiry an added risk and the Management will not be in a position to ensure the safety of witnesses and other workmen, if enquiry is conducted by it. Further, it was stated that in the event the respondent/workmen proceeding to have the issue of their non-employment adjudicated in a Court of law, the Management will be in a position to establish the acts of misconduct indulged by them by examining witnesses in the security of the Labour Court or such other forum, as may be proceeded. Thus, the Management dismissed the respondent/workmen forthwith reserving their right to establish the acts of misconduct by letting in necessary oral and documentary evidence, as the case may be, before the appropriate forum.
5. The respondent/workmen raised disputes before the Labour Court denying the allegations against them and contending that the order of dismissal has been issued to them without affording an opportunity to show cause against the allegations made against them. It was contended that the allegations made in the order of dismissal were concocted by the Management in order to victimise the workmen.
6. The main ground on which the order of dismissal was challenged is by contending that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice; it amounted to victimisation for the trade union activities engaged by the workmen by framing false allegations and therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. Further, it was contended that the Management had dismissed the workmen from service only because, they were active in the genuine trade union that was formed and if the action of the Management is viewed in the context of the entire background in which the action was taken, it reveals that the real motivation of the Management is to victimise the workmen which is the measure of unfair labour practice. Further, it was contended that the memos which were issued to the workmen earlier were with mala fide intention and their past record of service was blemishes and only after they joined the MRF United Workers Union, they were victimised.
7. The appellant/Management in their counter statement mentions about the incident stated to have taken place on 11.03.2004, which was the basis of the order of dismissal.
