Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is warranted when reinstatement is impractical due to strained relations and age of workmen, emphasizing the need for fairness in the enquiry process.

ORDER :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

While W.P. Nos. 23953/09, 23567/2016, 31486, 31487, 31488, 31489, 31490, 31491, 31492 & 31493/2017 have been filed by the petitioner/company against the order in and by which the approval petitions with regard to the dismissal of the workmen filed by the petitioner/company were dismissed by the Tribunal, W.P. No.43555/2016 has been filed by the workmen challenging the order in and by which the dispute relating to the settlement entered into u/s 12 (3) was dismissed.

2. As both the issues are inter-connected, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. For brevity, the petitioner/company will be referred to as ‘company’ and the petitioner/workmen will be referred to as ‘workmen’.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons for various customers and in the course of its production activities, the company had been facing unforeseen hardship on account of the instigation of the then General Secretary of the Union, one Joseph Kennedy, against whom action was taken for unauthorised absence and show cause notice was issued proposing to impose punishment of dismissal and the said individual had instigated the workmen to go on illegal strike from 15.3.2001 which continued upto 16.5.2001 and pursuant to the tripartite agreement dated 16.5.2001, the factory operations resumed. However, even thereafter, the workmen embarked on go slow tactics, which defeated the spirit of the 12 (3) Settlement. Intimidation of the higher authorities and refraining from doing the work were resorted to by the workmen and even the workmen threatened the higher authorities with dire consequences. On 13.11.2001, the workmen, who are the respondents herein, indulged in vandalizing and looting the factory premises and the machinery were damaged and the officials of the company were manhandled and assaulted. Costly items of machinery were looted and large scale damage was caused in the said strike, which resulted in the lodging of FIR before Ennore Police.

4. It is the further case of the company that charge sheets were issued to several workmen on 17.11.2001 charging them for various misconduct, but the workmen failed to receive the charge sheet resulting in the same being sent by registered post, but were refused to be received. Enquiry was initiated against the workmen in which the workmen did not participate leading to the enquiry officer setting the workmen ex parte and the enquiry was concluded and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the workmen stood proved.

5. It is the further averment of the company that by order dated 22.12.2001 the workmen were dismissed from service considering the gravity of the misconduct and the indiscipline of the workmen. Thereafter, petition u/s 33 (2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed before the Tribunal seeking approval of the order of dismissal. However, after hearing the parties and also the documents filed by the respective parties, the Tribunal dismissed the approval petitions by holding that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and the procedure adopted in the conduct of the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and there is blatant violation of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said order, the present batch of writ petition shave been filed by the company.

6. Some of the workmen had question the validity of the settlement arrived at by filing I.D. No.40/2001 and pending the same I.A. No.51/2002 was filed. However, the said dispute was kept pending citing the pendency of the approval petitions by holding that the order in the approval petitions would have a bearing on the dispute relating to the settlement. Thereafter, the Tribunal, upon deciding I.A. No.51/2002, rejected the main I.D. No.40/2001, vide award dated 3.5.2016 aggrieved by which W.P. No.43555/2016 has been filed by the workmen.

7. The case has a chequered history and since 2016, the writ