WP/4530/1995 of The Management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Vs The Presiding Officer, on 31 December 2004

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad in I.D.No.30 of 1990, dated 06.04.1994 whereinthe claim of the workman was answered in his favour directing the petitioner-Management to reinstate the workman into service with all back wages, attendantbenefits, seniority and all other benefits as per the Company’s Rules, standing orderand notification etc.

2. The workman while working as general mazdoor in the petitioner’s organization atRamakrishnapur, Adilabad District was issued with a charge sheet dated15.05.1984 alleging that the petitioner himself misbehaved with the ExecutiveEngineer and tried to man-handle him since he was not granted leave. Afterconducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the workman was dismissed fromservice. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised a dispute before theconciliation authority. On failure of the conciliation, the matter was referred to theGovernment and in turn the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, referred thematter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 for adjudication of the following issue:

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. S.C.Co.Ltd., Ramakrishnapurin terminating services of Sri P.Samaiah, General Mazdoor, RK-I CSP, is

3. Before the Industrial Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, no documents weremarked and no witnesses were examined. However, on behalf of the Management,MW-1 was examined and Exs:M-1 to M-8 were marked.

4. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal came tothe conclusion that though there was misconduct on the part of the workman whowas an illiterate, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate tothe gravity of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the dismissal of the workman wasnot justified. While holding so, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmaninto service with all back wages, attendant benefits, seniority and all other benefitsas per the company’s rules, standing order and notification etc. Aggrieved by thisAward, the management of the Company has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management contended that the Labour Courthaving held that the workman abused the officials of the

respondent-management for the refusal to grant leave, since the workman was anilliterate person and a labourer and it is common parlance that whatever goes wrongwith the officials of the management and workmen, it is bound to be violent turn andusing of filthy language is the common phenomenon. The charge levelled andproved against the workman was not so grave and serious so as to warrant thepunishment of dismissal from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management further submits that having found that the allegations are proved, it wasnot within the purview of the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment inflictedon the workman by the management, since the charge was grave and does notrequire interference of the Labour Court.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent-workman Sri G.Vidyasagarsubmitted that the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 11 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, has ample discretion to take the overall circumstances intoconsideration and this is one such case where the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the contention of the workman that he is an illiterate labourer and thecommon parlance used by him apart from the fact that the charge levelled againstthe workman was not so grave and serious to warrant the punishment of dismissalfrom service. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant anyinterference by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the second respondent-workman also contended that infact the whole disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the reason that theExecutive Engineer against whom the workman purported to have used filthylanguage and tried to man-handle himself has appointed the Enquiry Officer andconducted the enquiry and he participated in the enquiry and also cross-examinedthe witnesses and recommended for higher authorities for dismissal of workmanfrom service. This itself would go to show that there was gross violation of the rulesand the principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, now that the Award is notunder challenge by the workman. Therefore, we need not go into those allegations.

8. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons saying that it was a petty dispute ofnot granting leave to the workman by the management and may be a workmanturned violent and used some filthy language. But, the charge levelled and provedagainst the workman was not so grave and serious requiring inflicting of punishmentof dismissal from service and may be the workman ought to have been inflicted witha lesser punishment i.e. stoppage of increment, stoppage of wages for the absentedperiod etc. Therefore, the dismissal from service of the workman is shockinglydisproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. While holdingso, the Labour Court has granted all the reliefs and there is no punishment inflictedeven as contemplated by the Labour Court in its proceedings. Therefore, I am of theview that once the misconduct is proved and once such finding is arrived at, theworkman ought to have been inflicted with a lesser punishment other than thedismissal from service and that being so, the Labour Court ought not to have grantedfull wages for the period which the workman was out of service. Therefore, theAward of the Labour Court is liable to be modified as under:

Company Limited, Ramakrishnapur in terminating services of Sri P.SamaiahGeneral Mazdoor, RK-I CSP is not justified. The Respondent-Management isdirected to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service with 50% of the backwages, attendant benefits, seniority and all other benefits as per the Company’sRules, standing orders, notifications etc.”

9. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orderas to costs.

_______________

C.V. RAMULU, JDated: 31-12-2004

ccm

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Friday the ThirtyFirst day of December two thousand and four.

To

1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal I, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

2 The Workmen of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Rep by BranchSecretary,S.C. Workers Union (INTUC) Po: Ramakrishnapur Adilabad Dist.

3 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT)

4 2 CD copies.