Karnataka High Court
Shri. R Umesh vs The Principal on 9 April, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.36518/2010 & W.P.Nos. 36522/2010,
36525/2010, 36531-36533/2010, 36537/2010 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.1062 &1064/2011(L-TER)
IN W.P. No.36518/2010
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. R UMESH
S/O B K RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
JAVARANAHALLY,
BELLUR HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
IN W.P.NO. 36522/2010
BETWEEN:
2. SHRI T R SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE K RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
THEETHA POST AND VILLAGE
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
2
IN W.P.NO. 36525/2010
BETWEEN:
3. SHRI S R KODAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAIAH (KUNTA KODI)
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O SONDALAGERE
UTTARIDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
In W.P.Nos. 36531-36533/2010
BETWEEN:
4. SHRI M HONNE GOWDA
S/O LATE MELE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O VARAHASANDRA DADAGA POST
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
5. SHRI RAMALINGE GOWDA
S/O T M NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O THIPUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, K R NAGARA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
6. SHRI S D K DEVAIAH
S/O DHYAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O SOONAGAHALLI VILLAGE (PO)
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
3
W.P.No.36537/2010
BETWEEN:
7. SHRI SIDDARAJU G
S/O GIRI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O YADAMARANA HALLI
(POST AND VILLAGE) TYYAMBALLI (H)
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
ADICHUNCHANGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
BALAGANGHADHARANATHA NAGARA
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448
2. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
ADICHUNCHANGIRI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH
CENTRE, BALAGANGADHARANATHA NAGARA
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448 ... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.03.2010 PASSED BY THE
LABOUR COURT, MYSORE AT ANNEXURE K.
4
W.P. NOS.1062 & 1064/2011
1. GUNDAPPA. M
S/O MAHALINGLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
HIRUYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. SHOBHA N.S.
W/O KRISHNEGOWDA S
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O N.T.SRINIVASAN,
A.NAGATHIHALLI,
ALUSANDRE POST,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.R.KALYAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
ADICHUNCHANGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
BALAGANGHADHARANATHA NAGARA
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448
2. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
ADICHUNCHANGIRI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH
CENTRE, BALAGANGADHARANATHA NAGARA
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
5
SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2
R1 IS SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.03.2010 PASSED BY THE
LABOUR COURT, MYSORE AT ANNEXURE A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 13.07.2017, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 31/03/2010 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore dismissing the claim petitions filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts to be stated in brief are that petitioners had joined the service of the respondent establishments. The respondents ill-treated the petitioners compelling them to live with meager wages which amounts to highhandedness and unfair labour practice. The petitioners with other employees formed a trade union namely, Sri Adichunchanagiri Hospital & Medical College Employees Association, in order to protect themselves from exploitation and to improve their service 6 conditions. The respondents took vindictive attitude towards the employees who joined the trade union and started harassing them, brought pressure to withdraw from the trade union and also threatened with dire consequences including dismissal from service. As an vindictive attitude, the respondents transferred seven active members of the trade union to various places and 38 workmen have been dismissed from service w.e.f., 20.11.2000 as a game plan to crush the legitimate trade union activities.
3. The petitioners gave a call for strike of half an hour to support the 7 workmen who had been illegally transferred and that the respondents refused to allow all the workmen to do the work till 25.09.2000 and thereafter also, the employment was refused to all the workmen amounting to illegal lockout. Though lockout was prohibited, the respondents not only refused employment, but also terminated their services and insisted that whoever wants to join work have to sign memorandum of settlement in Form `H' contrary to the law, used police force to bring pressure on the workmen to accept the terms and also 7 threatened that if anybody wants job, they must affix their signature to the undertaking form. When the conciliation proceedings were in progress, due to pressure of the conciliation officer, agreed as per letter dated 01.12.2001 to engage the services of some of the employees by taking undertaking. Those who were from the local areas were transferred to distant places where there are no institutions but only Mutt and thus offer of employment was only an eye-wash. The workmen who allowed to work obtaining an undertaking, were paid less salary creating anomaly and differentiation among the employees.
4. When the workmen were sitting Dharna, the respondents used police force to lift the tent and sign the undertaking if they want to continue to serve the establishment. When the workmen sought police assistance to enter the premises to work, the respondent establishment successfully curtailed them from entering the premises and the police also denied assistance as per the direction of the respondent establishment. Action of the respondents in dismissing the workmen from service is opposed to principles of natural justice. 8 The grounds urged in the order of dismissal to dispense enquiry are untenable, baseless and unsustainable and all the allegations made against the workmen are totally false, fabricated and baseless. Hence they claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
5. The respondent establishment resisted the claim petitions contending that the claim petitions are not maintainable. Sri Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences is run by Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust (R) and so also Medical College. The second party institution is a charitable and religious institution. The petitioner workmen being residents in the vicinity expressed their desire to serve honorarily with devotion and render social service in addition to performing their agricultural work and thus they were provided an opportunity to serve the suffering patients and while taking their service, respondents felt paying some honorarium. There was no advertisement inviting applications from the workmen for appointment and that they come voluntarily. However, after 9 some years of service, they were absorbed with regular pay scales.
6. Because of some disgruntled employees like the petitioners an union was formed making false accusation against the establishment, started indulging in anti-management and anti labour activities and the petitioners were not having support of majority of employees of medical college and hospital. The Medical College and Hospital come under essential and public utility services. The petitioners with other employees indulged in the strike with effect from 7.9.2000 when the conciliation proceedings were in progress. The strike is illegal under Sections 22 and 23 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen indulged in certain serious acts of misconduct during their illegal strike, instigated and incited on demand to withdraw transfer orders. On 8.9.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. the first party workmen with other 37 workmen pelted stones on the houses of the employees who attended the duty, threatened the loyal employees of kidnapping their children and assaulting the family members if they attend duty and that on 7.9.2000, physically 10 obstructed the patients and their relatives from entering the hospital for treatment and on the same day, in the midnight the workmen threw big boulders on the water supply junction pipe near the hospital premises thereby disrupting water supply and it took nearly three days to repair the damage and restore water supply.
7. On 7.9.2000 around 9.30 p.m. the dismissed workmen sabotaged electricity supply to the hospital, college and hostels by short circuiting the electric system and the generator was also damaged. On 25.9.2000 they defaced the hospital compound walls, shopping complex, staff quarters by writing filthy, abusive and derogatory slogans and when the two staff nurses were ready to report for duty, the workmen prevented them and being unable to bear tension and fear caused, the said two nurses resigned thereby management lost services of two good hands.
8. On 05.10.2000 at 9.30 p.m. the workmen came to Adhichunchanagiri Mutt in three autorikshaws when Navarathri Pooja was going on, went near kitchen, pooja room and temple 11 in darkness and were moving suspiciously and the management had to seek police protection. On 15.11.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. they attacked Smt.Moli Thomas, Nursing Assistant, on Javaranahalli road while she was on the way to her house after her duty and abused her in derogatory language and threatened to rape her if she attends duty and at about 7.20 p.m. on the same day, rushed to her house and at about 7.30 p.m. they trespassed the residence of Smt.Bhojamma, Assistant Staff Nurse and abused her for attending her duty during strike and that they also threatened her and her family members if she attends duty. The said acts of the workmen paralysed the work of the hospital and the college and conditions of some patients became very critical and villagers who needed treatment after 07.09.2000 could not utilize the hospital facilities. This had caused great inconvenience and hardship to the villagers and to the institution and in the normal course, the management was aware that an enquiry should be held. But the unlawful and violent activities of the workmen created fear, psychosis in and around the institution, particularly in the minds of other workmen who reported about the incidents and were afraid to 12 give their statement in the enquiry. Hence the management had no other alternative but to dispense services of the workmen without holding enquiry, on 20.11.2000. In the circumstances, just because an enquiry is not held, the dismissal will not become illegal, invalid and bad. The management will justify dismissal by leading independent evidence on all charges mentioned in the dismissal order dated 20.11.2000. The averments made in the claim petitions clearly go to show that they were taking shelter under trade union activities. The workmen had indulged in illegal strike and resorted to instigating and inciting other employees to participate in illegal strike. The demands made by the first party workmen and other employees were totally not justified. There is no vindictive attitude towards the employees who had joined the newly established trade union. To cover up the illegal and unjustifiable activities, the workmen indulged in illegal and unjustified strike and committed serious misconduct as aforesaid. The dismissal was in accordance with law and was for bona fide reasons. The respondents have lost confidence in the services of the petitioners and therefore they cannot be reinstated. 13
9. The respondents have filed detailed reply to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Conciliation Officer justifying transfer of 7 workmen. The strike notice issued by the union was illegal and unjustified. When the matter was in conciliation, the workmen resorted to strike which was totally illegal and prohibited under Sections 22 and 23 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1949. The few employees took keys of water pump house, operation theatre, canteen, laboratory, medical stores, kitchen and blood bank, CT scan etc., and the patients suffered for want of essential items. The workmen were requested to handover the keys of the respective departments before 12 noon on 12.09.2000 and this had no effect on the workmen. The management had to suspend 11 employees who had taken away the keys and apart from 11 employees, few other employees also indulged in acts of misconduct like sabotage of essential supplies. However, 11 suspended employees and few other workmen continued in violence obstructing the loyal workmen who were going to duty and who did not respond to their illegal strike call and that the misconduct 14 of the striking workmen continued unabated and these acts forced the management to dismiss in all 38 employees. The transferred and dismissed workmen prevented 21 workmen of the college and 81 workmen of the hospital from reporting to duty and compelled them to continue the illegal and unjustified strike in support of their illegal and unjust, non-existing imaginary demands and however, a majority of workmen i.e., 71 in the college and 151 in the hospital not being interested in strike or in agitation had been coming to the college and hospital and attending to their work in spite of threat and intimidation from striking workmen.
10. On 30.11.2001 the employees agreed before the Principal Labour Secretary, to give undertaking as indicated and as sought for by the management and accordingly, employees were directed to give undertaking and about 98 employees gave undertaking and reported for duty. On 27.03.2002 in the meeting held before the Principal Labour Secretary, the union had agreed that if these 42 employees were issued written orders of transfer they would go and report for work at the 15 transferred places. In spite of issuing transfer orders, they did not report for duty at the transferred places. Those 42 employees filed complaint under Section 33-A of the Act which are not maintainable. The Management never refused employment and never declared lockout. They were gainfully employed elsewhere and the workmen are not entitled for wages from 7.9.2000.
11. The Labour Court by the impugned order held that the Management is justified in dismissing the workmen, the workmen are not entitled for reinstatement and accordingly dismissed the claim petitions. Being aggrieved, these writ petitions are filed.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the L.C.R. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to the judgment of Division Bench of this court in ILR 1998 KAR 18. Without issuing any articles of charges and also without holding any enquiry, the respondents have straight away dismissed them from service, which is unjust, illegal and 16 arbitrary. The Labour Court has completely relied upon evidence of MW-1 to MW6 and has given go by to the evidence of the petitioners and held that charges are proved. The reasoning to hold that charges are proved, is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material evidence on record. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the management were their employees thus interested and no independent witnesses were examined. MW-1 has admitted that he too participated in that strike and he had also admitted that on 07.09.2000 it was decided to go on strike for 1 hour and then resume to work. By careful reading of evidence of MW-1, it is crystal clear that his evidence is not trust worthy and it cannot be believed. The Labour Court has ignored the evidence of MW-1. MW-2 Nagaraju has admitted that he was initially appointed as attender and posted as Second Division Clerk after the incident. MW-2 has also admitted that more than 75% of the employees joined the union and he was not witness to the damages caused by the workers. Even MW-2 is set up by the Management to depose in their favour. The evidence of MW-3 cannot be attached with any credibility as there was no corroboration since his evidence is contradictory. 17 The other witnesses MW-4 to MW-6 they participated in the strike and subsequently they reported for duty by giving an undertaking. None of the patients were examined to prove the inconvenience on account of the strike. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in placing much reliance on the evidence of MWs-1 to MW-6. The evidence of the petitioners clearly go to show that the petitioners have been victimized. Majority of the workmen participated in the strike but only 38 workmen were dismissed from service without holding any enquiry. The majority of the petitioners were appointed in the respondent institution on the ground that their agricultural land has been acquired by the Matt for lowest price with an assurance that they will provide appointments in the institution. The very object of appointments has been taken away by the respondent management by dismissing the petitioners from service. Failure to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court, there is substantial failure of justice.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Labour Court. It 18 is submitted that the Labour Court has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and has come to correct conclusions and such a reasoned order cannot be interfered by this Court. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
14. On hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is perverse, capricious or unreasonable, calling for interference by this Court? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons.
15. In the usual course, there cannot be termination or dismissal from service without preceded by a fair and proper departmental enquiry. It is true that if no enquiry is preceded, it would not automatically lead to a conclusion that the workmen are entitled for the reliefs prayed for. However, it is to be seen whether the Management was justified in dispensing with domestic enquiry. In case of Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company v. The Management & others, (1973(26) FLR 359(SC) it is held that even if no enquiry has been held by an 19 employer or if the enquiry held is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. Therefore, to decide the dismissal order passed without holding an enquiry, the Tribunal has to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence to justify its action. Even a defective enquiry stands on the same footing. It has come in the evidence of MW-2 Nagaraju.B that 38 dismissed employees including these 34 dismissed employees through their various unlawful and violent acts for a period of about two and half months created a fear in the minds of the employees of the hospital and college who had reported for duty and that the management had also asked him to give evidence if the domestic enquiry was held and that he had expressed apprehension to give evidence. MW-2 stated that even the other employees also worried very much and scared about their safety and security of their family members and the situation in and 20 around the hospital and college was very explosive and in order to create a peaceful atmosphere, the management dismissed 38 employees, as the management could not hold enquiry since the situation was not conducive. MW-1 Ramesh stated in his evidence that only after dismissal of the employees and other four employees, the tension prevailed there was eased and the employees who were working during illegal strike could attend their work without any anxiety and fear. MW-3 has also deposed that the dismissed employees by their various unlawful and violent acts created a fear in the minds of the employees of the hospital and college who had reported for duty and the employees working had expressed their apprehension to come and give evidence in case domestic enquiry was held and the employees worried very much and scared about their safety and security of their family members and situation in and around the hospital and college was very explosive and therefore the only alternative left to the management was to dismiss the employees, without holding enquiry. The evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 coupled with various violent acts on the part of the dismissed employees would lead to an inevitable conclusion that 21 it was not reasonably practical to the respondent Management to hold a domestic enquiry against the dismissed employees.
16. It is the case of the petitioners that they only participated in a token strike for half an hour and that after half an hour, all of them went for reporting for duty but the respondent Management did not allow them to do their job till 25.9.2000 and therefore refusal of employment to these workmen amounts to illegal lockout. On the other hand, the Management contended that when the conciliation proceedings were pending, all the dismissed employees had gone on illegal strike and the other employees who had also gone on strike reported for duty after executing letter of undertaking and the dismissed employees did not report for duty and they indulged in illegal strike. From perusal of Sections 22, 23 & 24 of Industrial Disputes Act, it emerges that no employee, employed in a public utility service, shall go on strike during pendency of conciliation proceedings and 7 days after conclusion of said proceedings and that no employer during pendency of any conciliation proceedings shall lockout any of his workman. It has come in 22 the evidence of workmen that 34 dismissed employees had joined the token strike on 7.9.2000 only for a period of half an hour in support of 7 workmen who have been transferred illegally for formation of trade union and after half an hour, when they went for reporting for duty, the second party management did not allow them. In the cross-examination the workmen pleaded ignorance when it was suggested that they had indulged in illegal strike when the conciliation proceedings were pending. Some of them went to the extent of denying their participation in the strike. It has come in their evidence that when they had gone on strike some of the employees were working in the hospital as well as in the medical college. WW-1 in IID 71/2001 has admitted that conciliation was pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding transfer of seven employees. He pleaded his ignorance about conciliation proceedings on 3.8.2000, 17.8.2000, 24.8.2000, 2.9.2000 and 6.9.2000. According to petitioners, they have not attended for their duty on 7.9.2000 and 8.9.2000. The evidence of MW-1 to MW-6 indicates that all the 38 dismissed employees including the petitioners went on illegal strike on 07.09.2000 when the 23 conciliation proceedings were pending. The evidence of MW-2 and MW-4 to MW-6 indicate that the workmen instigated and incited them and other workers to join the illegal strike and they were compelled to participate in the strike. It is in the evidence of MW-3 B K Narasimhaiah that the workmen went on strike w.e.f. 07.09.2000 during pendency of conciliation proceedings and therefore the strike resorted to by the workmen was illegal and because of the first party workmen, all the employees were prevented from attending their duty and that the demand of the first party workmen to withdraw the transfer of 7 employees and that the management had submitted a detailed report dated 17.8.2000 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner explaining in detail the facts and circumstances to transfer the 7 employees and that the strike was illegal, as the hospital was a public utility service. Ex.M2 notice fixed the hearing on 03.08.2000 at 3.00 p.m. The Management submitted detailed report as per Ex.M3 to the Conciliation Officer explaining the circumstances to transfer 7 employees and requested to advise the workmen not to resort to any illegal strike. In Ex.M3 it is stated even in the conciliation meeting on 23.9.2000 the workmen were not ready 24 to call off the strike. Ex.M19 report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner makes mention of conciliation proceedings on different dates and during pendency of the conciliation proceedings, employees had gone on strike. The conciliation officer has recorded failure of the conciliation proceedings. These materials show that it is not a token strike as sought to be contended by the workmen. The workmen went on strike when the conciliation proceedings were pending. Therefore, the strike in which the petitioners were indulged is an illegal strike and unjustified.
17. It is found in the evidence of the workmen that some of the employees who had participated in the strike had reported for duty after executing the letter of undertaking and certain other employees had not participated in the strike. MW-1 and MW-2 in their evidence have stated that even though they participated in the strike, later they attended their duty after executing the letter of undertaking. The evidence of MW-3 is also to the effect that except the dismissed employees, the other employees resumed their work. Therefore, except the dismissed 25 employees, the other employees resumed their work. Hence the contention of the petitioners that there was lockout only for the dismissed workmen cannot be accepted.
18. The overtacts on the part of the petitioners and others are culled out in Para-51 of the impugned order, which is reproduced for convenience.
(a) The first party workmen and the four other dismissed employees instigated and incited the other employees to go on strike w.e.f. 7.9.2000 when the Conciliation Proceedings were pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in respect of transfer of 7 employees and these employees instigated and incited and brought about the illegal strike apart from participating, opposing the transfer of seven employees while demanding the management not to transfer the employees from one place to another and withdrawing the transfer of 7 employees.
(b) The first party workmen on 7.9.2000 along with four other dismissed employees physically obstructed the patients and their relatives from entering the hospital for treatment and they had sent back those patients and relatives and these first party workmen had blocked the ingress and egress of the hospital with the 26 result, the specialist, doctors were not available to treat the patients in the hospital during the period of illegal strike commencing from 7.9.2000.
(c) These first party workmen along with other four dismissed employees on 7.9.2000 around mid night, threw a big stone boulders on the water supply junction pipe situated near the hospital premises which supply water to the hospitals, college and hostel and this has resulted inconvenience to the patients, doctors and to the inmates of the hostel and damage caused to the water pipe is so serious, that it took three days to repair and during these three days the management had to fetch water through private tankers at a heavy cost.
(d) These first party workmen along with other four dismissed employees, on 7.9.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. sabotaged electricity supply to the hospital, college and hostel by inserting a coin between the bulb and holder which resulted in short circuit of the entire electric wire system, which led to complete darkness and utter confusion and when the management tried to switch on, it was discovered that these first party workmen had damaged the vital generator connection and thereby depriving the benefit of generator facility and only in the afternoon on 8.9.2000 the electricity 27 connection was restored by availing the services of outside electricians.
(e) These first party workmen along with the other four dismissed employees on 8.9.2000, at about 10.30 p.m. pelted stones over the house of the employees who attended their work on 7.9.2000 and 8.9.2000 as they refused to follow their instruction and refused to participate in the strike and that these first party workmen also threaten the said employees in the presence of family members of kidnapping their children and assaulted if they attend their work and because of the first party workmen, the employees and family members became panic and requested the management to give protection to their families and their properties.
(f) These first party workmen along with four other dismissed employees on 25.9.2000 in concerted action defaced the hospitals compound walls, walls of the shopping complex, walls of the staff quarters by writing highly abusive and derogatory slogans against the management and the officials.
(g) These first party workmen along with four other dismissed employees after coming to know that Smt.Manju Koriakose and Smt.Vimala Peter, staff 28 nurses were transferred to Ramanagaram by order of transfer dated 29.8.2000, abused these two employees and threatened them with dire consequences in case they accept the transfer orders and report for work at Ramanagaram and unable to bear the tension and fear caused by these first party workmen on account of threatening and intimidating, these two staff nurses resigned from services and on account of the act of these dismissed employees (first party workmen), the management had lost services of two good hands.
(h) Among these dismissed first party workmen, some of the dismissed employees, J.B. Lingegowda, Ramalingegowda, Bhaskarachari, V N Mahalingegowda, J B Ananth Kumar, J S Prakash, Ninga Maistry, J K Shivaram, J B Hongere Gowda, Umesh and T R Siddappa being influenced by the derogatory speech of V.G.K Nair and Sri Mohan Kumar to intensify the agitation came to the Adichunchanagiri Mutt in three Autorikshaws on 5.10.2000 at 9.30 p.m. when Navarathri Pooja was going on and the above persons were lurking in the dark near the kitchen, pooja room and temple and they had left without meeting anybody in the Mutt and that the management had to seek police protection in view of the bomb threat.29
(i) Among these dismissed first party workmen, the dismissed employees Mahalinge Gowda, Sri Umesh and others on 15.11.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. attacked Smt.Moli Thomas Nursing Assistant on Javaranahalli Road while going on residence after completing her duty and these employees intimidated her with dire consequences if she attend her duty and that these employees had abused her in derogatory language and threatened to rape her and on the same day at about 7.20 p.m. these dismissed employees along with other employees Smt.Rajamma, Smt.Manjula, Smt.Shanthamma, Smt.Lakshmamma, Sri Lingegowda, J G Sri Prakash, Sri Ramalingegowda, Sri Hongere Gowda forcibly opened the door and trespassed into the residence of Smt. Moli Thomas and again threatened her with dire consequences in case she attends her duty and these employees also abused her in a derogatory and filthy language.
(j) Among these dismissed first party workmen the dismissed employees Smt.Manjula, Smt.Rajamma, Smt. Lakshmamma, Smt. Shanthamma, Smt.Sudha, Sri Bhaskarachari, Sri Shivaram, Sri J S Manjunatha on 15.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. forcibly trespassed into the residence of Smt.Bojamma, Assistant Staff nurse and abused her from attending her duty against their instructions and these employees also threatened to 30 kidnap her and her family members in case she attends her duty and thus these employees have taken law into their hands and behaved in a rowdy manner which is unbecoming of an employee."
19. To prove the alleged misconduct by the dismissed first party workmen, as detailed in Ex.M1 dismissal order, the Management relied upon evidence of MWs.1 to 6 and also documentary evidence. Hence it is necessary to scan the evidence of management witnesses.
20. MW-1 Ramesh, MW-2 Nagaraju B, and MW-3 B K Narasimhaiah, the Manager of the Management, have stated in their deposition that all the dismissed employees on 07.09.2000 physically obstructed the patients and their relatives from entering the hospital for treatment and that their relatives were sent back and that these dismissed employees had blocked the people from coming inside and going out of the hospital and therefore the specialists and doctors were not available to treat the patients in the hospital and that on 07.09.2000 around midnight the dismissed employees had thrown a big stone 31 boulders on the water supply junction pipe situated near the hospital and the water pipe was damaged, as a result there was no water supply to the hospital, college and hostel and thus caused inconvenience to the patients, doctors and inmates of the hospital. These witnesses further reiterated that on 07.09.2000 around midnight at 9.30 p.m. the workmen sabotaged supply of electricity to the hospital, college and hostels by inserting coin in between the bulb and holder at ground floor of special ward and as a result 5 to 6 tube lights went off and all the dismissed employees came behind nursing college and threw wire on the 11 KV line which resulted in short-circuit and this has created darkness in the hospital and the workmen came near the CSSD and removed the connecting wires and short circuited the same and because of this vital generator connection was damaged. On 25.9.2000, all the dismissed employees defaced the college and hospital walls and the walls of the shopping complex and the walls of the staff quarters by writing abusive and derogatory slogans against the management and the officials and for this, the dismissed employees brought waste oil from Bellur cross and with brushes they wrote the derogatory slogans on the walls. 32 The dismissed employees abused two staff nurses namely, Smt.Manju Koria Kose and Smt.Vimala Peter and threatened them with dire consequences in case they report for duty at Ramanagaram thereby those employees resigned from their post. They deposed, one V G K Nair and Sri Mohan Kumar had visited the striking employees and made inflammatory speech against the management and these union leaders in their speech incited the striking employees to blast the mutt in order to make management to agree for their demands. On 15.11.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. among the dismissed employees, one J B Manjunath along with Sri Mahalinge Gowda, Sri Umesh and others attacked Moli Thomus, Nursing Assistant on Javaranahalli road while she was on her way to her residence after completing her duty and that Sri J B Manjunath intimidated her with dire consequences to her life if she attends her duty and abused her in derogatory language and even threatened her to rape her and at 7.20 p.m. the dismissed employees along with Smt.Rajamma, Smt.Manjula, Smt.Shanthamma, Sri J S Manjunath, Sri Lingegowda, Sri Prakash, Sri Ramalingegowda, Sri Hongeregowda forcibly opened the door and trespassed into the 33 residence of Smt.Moli Thomas and again they threatened her with dire consequences in case she attends duty and also abused her in filthy language. At about 7.30 p.m. among dismissed employees Smt.Manjula, Smt.Rajamma, Smt.Shanthamma, Smt.Sudha, Sri Bhaskarachari, Sri Shivaram, Sri J S Manjunath and Sri R Umesh forcibly trespassed into the residence of Smt.Bojamma, Assistant Staff Nurse and abused her for attending her duty against their instructions. MW-1 and MW-2 have stated, the institution is functioning smoothly after dismissal of 38 employees.
21. MW-3 has stated that Management had sent letter as per Ex.M5 dated 7.9.2000 to the Minister of Labour, Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner informing about illegal strike and it is pointed out sufferance of the patients and others because of lack of essential items like water, medicine, food and keys of the pump house, operation theatre, laboratory, canteen, medical store, blood bank, CT Scanner room, were taken away by the striking staff. In this regard, Ex.M-6, Ex.M7 & Ex.M9 complaints came to be lodged against the striking 34 employees. Ex.M10 is a letter whereby Labour Authorities were requested to direct the concerned employees to handover the keys of the respective sections or in the alternative permit the management to break open the locks. Ex.M12 is the Circular dated 12.9.2000 issued to each of the employees Technicians to handover the keys which they did handover only on 25.10.2000. MW-3 deposed that on 5.10.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. some of the dismissed employees came to Mutt in three auto rikshaws when Navarathri Pooja was going on and they were hiding near kitchen, pooja room and temple and thereafter they left without meeting anybody and in this connection police complaint was lodged on 06.10.2000 as per Ex.M15. According to MW-3 in connection with incident dated 11.11.2000 complaint was lodged against Bhaskarachari as per Ex.M16 and in respect of another incident on 15.11.2000, pertains to Smt.Bhojamma a complaint was lodged against Smt.Manjula, Smt.Rajamma, Smt.Lakshmamma, Smt.Shanthamma, Smt.Mayamma and Smt.Sudha as per Ex.M17 and another incident pertains to Smt.Moli Thomas complaint was lodged against Sri Basavaraj, Sri Mahalinga and Sri Ramesh. MW-3 also deposed as to 35 damage caused to C T Scanner and Management had to spend Rs.3,20,000/- to repair the same. The quotation in this regard is marked as Ex.M24 and receipt is marked as Ex.M24(a). Ex.M25 is the complaint dated 17.05.2001 relating to damage caused to water pipes. According to MW-3 because of the illegal strike from 07.09.2000 the working of the hospital and college was paralysed and that the villagers who needed medical treatment could not get it.
22. MW-4 Smt.Bhojamma has spoken about the incident on 15.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. that named employees forcibly trespassed into her residence and abused her on the ground that she was attending her duty when the strike was going on, one R Umesh gave threat to kidnap her and her family members and behaved in a rowdy manner.
23. MW-5 Suresh working as Office Superintendent has spoken about the strike on 07.09.2000 by group of employees and he did not participate in the strike. On 08.09.2000 when he went for duty he was prevented by group of workers consisting of R Umesh, Manjunath, Ananthakumar, Ashok, Hongeregowda 36 and others and threatened him with dire consequences. He was unable to attend his duty for a period of 46 days and on 24.10.2000 he approached the management to permit him to attend his duty and accordingly he has given his undertaking. MW-5 stated, situation continued to be tensed, which made the management to dismiss all the 38 employees.
24. MW-6 Smt. Moli Thomas, Nursing Assistant has spoken about the incident occurred relating to her on 15.11.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. making derogatory remarks against her and threatening her with dire consequences.
25. MW-1 to MW-6 were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited about prejudice and bias or false implication. Though the petitioners could reiterate the averments made in the claim statements, except their interested testimony, nothing has been brought on record so as to believe their testimony. The oral evidence of MWs-1 to MW-6 is supported by the documentary evidence like the complaints, quotation for repair of the damaged articles and receipt for 37 having made the payment. The workmen have gone to the extent of denying the basic requirements like water, electricity, medicine and services of important sections by taking away the keys of those sections. The Conciliation Officer had to be requested to advise the striking employees to handover the keys and only on a later date the keys were handed over. The complaint was also lodged for setting the bus on fire on 27.12.2000. Ex.M22 was issued to the General Secretary that he would be directly held responsible in case strike led by him endangers to public property. Even the Labour Court took into consideration the past history of those employees. The number of complaints lodged by the Management go to show that the incident has taken place and only because of that the Management could file those number of complaints. The employees went on illegal strike and completely paralysed functioning of the institutions, created apprehension in the minds of patients, their relatives and co-employees. They went to the extent of manhandling some of the staff members, damaged properties belonging to the Management and caused loss to the institution of which they were the employees. The past history 38 referred in the impugned order indicates that many of them were issued memos, minor penalties were imposed and they have even tendered apology. It is already observed in the previous paragraph that it was not reasonably practical to hold a domestic enquiry considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the dismissed employees. Strike in a public utility service unit has more repercussions than any other place. The evidence of management witnesses coupled with various documentary evidence placed on record clearly establish the overtacts on the part of the dismissed employees which are beyond the limit of employees of the institutions like the respondent Management. If such incidents are considered lightly and if the dismissed employees are granted relief as they sought for in the writ petitions, it will give a wrong indication to the labour force, which is not permissible. In the circumstances, I am of the clear view that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. The Labour Court has elaborately considered the case and is justified in passing the impugned order. There are no grounds to interfere with the said considered order. 39
It is noticed from the record that out of the 27 petitioners in both the set of writ petitions, the matters relating to 17 petitioners are ended in compromise between those petitioners and the respondent Management by different orders. Only 9 of the writ petitioners are remained and it is for the respondent Management to settle their cases also like others, if the petitioners so desire. Therefore, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of petitioners and respondent Management to resolve their dispute by way of compromise as is done in case of other petitioners.
Accordingly, all the above writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd