Madras High Court
Karunakaran N. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 21 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2001)IIILLJ1386MAD
JUDGMENT N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 161 of 1987, dated November 13, 1990 and to quash the award passed by it.
2. The writ petitioner was employed as a Junior Lab Assistant in the year 1971 in the second respondent company. According to the petitioner, on July 30, 1981, he was beaten by one V. Natarajan who was employed as chemist in the second respondent company and he reported the same to the supervisor and he gave two complaints against the said Natarajan on the same day, one to the General Manager and the other to Industrial Relations Manager. It seems that the said Natarajan also gave counter complaint against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the second respondent instead of investigating both the complaints, proceeded to investigate the complaint given by the said Natarajan against the petitioner alone without taking any action on the complaint given against Natarajan.
3. It is stated that the second respondent issued a chargesheet alleging that at about 10.10 A.M. on July 30, 1981, the petitioner had beaten Natarajan on his left cheek with the notebooks found on the table. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the chargesheet on July 31, 1981. The second respondent conducted enquiry and six witnesses were examined. According to the petitioner, the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper as a copy of the complaint given by Natarajan was not furnished to the petitioner, nor did the second respondent furnish the list of witnesses. It is also stated that the enquiry officer cross-examined the petitioner and his witnesses. It is stated that the complainant was allowed to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses and then the petitioner was asked to cross-examine his witnesses. It is stated that the enquiry officer on the basis of the enquiry held by him found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him, and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the second respondent passed an order on September 2, 1981 dismissing the petitioner from service.
4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, by order, dated March 8, 1989, held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was vitiated and the Labour Court granted opportunity to the second respondent to let in evidence before the Labour Court and prove the charge levelled against the petitioner. The second respondent examined as many as four witnesses before the Labour Court and the petitioner also gave evidence. The Labour Court passed an award on November 13, 1990 which is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Labour Court was not correct in placing reliance on the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry which was subsequently found to be vitiated by the Labour Court in the preliminary order, dated March 8, 1989 and also the evidence adduced before the Labour Court to find out whether the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court should have altogether ignored the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and confined its attention to the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. It is stated that the second respondent had not investigated the complaint given by the petitioner and the Labour Court was not correct in holding that there was no prohibition to consider the evidence adduced before the enquiry proceedings. It is also stated that the Labour Court has committed an illegality on relying upon the evidence given by Jothirajan and Chandramohan in the domestic enquiry which was found to be vitiated in the preliminary order, dated March 8, 1991 (sic), and the Labour Court has failed to consider the motive to victimise the petitioner. It is also stated that the Labour Court was not correct in holding that the petitioner gave his complaint after he came to understand that Natarjan had given a complaint against him. It is also stated that Labour Court was not correct in holding that the past record of the petitioner was full of blemish when there was no evidence to prove the past record of the petitioner. It is stated that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge. It is on the above grounds that the writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court.
5. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and in the counter-affidavit, after narrating the events leading to the passing of the order of dismissal against the petitioner, it is stated that the second respondent has examined four witnesses before the Labour Court and there was no bar for the Labour Court to consider the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry which was held to be vitiated alongwith the evidence led before the Labour Court. It is also stated that the Labour Court negatived the plea of victimisation and the Labour Court found that the complaint ofthe petitioner against Natarajan was only an after thought, and there was no evidence to say that Natarajan beat the petitioner. It is also stated that the Labour Court has found that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved by the evidence on record and the past record of the petitioner was full of blemish and the punishment cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. The case of the second respondent is that there is no prohibition for the Labour Court to consider the evidence let in during the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence let in before the Labour Court to find the petitioner guilty of the charge. It is stated that the dismissal of the petitioner is valid in law, and there is no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, particularly in a case where the order of dismissal was passed in the year 1981, and such interference after a period of about 18 years would cause irreparable damage to the second respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court is erroneous in law as the Labour Court was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer when the Labour Court earlier found that the enquiry was defective in nature for the reasons stated therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Labour Court should have confined to the evidence adduced before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was not correct in relying upon the evidence given by Jothirajan and Chandramohan. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court has failed to consider the plea of the petitioner that it was only to victimise the petitioner due to ill-feeling generated by the Managing Director against the petitioner's father that the order of dismissal was passed and the Labour Court was also not correct in holding that the complaint of the petitioner against Natarajan was an after-thought. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Anr., 1999-I-LLJ-275 (SC), and also the decision of this Court in Thanjavur Textiles v. Presiding Officer 1998-III-LLJ(Suppl)-1285 (Mad), and submitted that the Labour Court was not correct in relying upon the evidence let in before the enquiry officer which was found to be vitiated and the Labour Court should have confined its attention to the evidence let in before the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the award of the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court was not correct in relying upon the evidence of one M. Narasimhalu Naidu who was examined only before the enquiry officer and also in relying upon the evidence of Jothirajan and Chandramohan. He therefore, submitted that the Labour Court has committed an illegality in relying upon the evidence let in before the enquiry officer and hence, the award of the Labour Court should be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry have not influenced the Labour Court. He referred to the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that though the Labour Court has stated that there was nothing to preclude the Labour Court from looking into the evidence gathered during the enquiry proceedings, the award of the Labour Court is sustainable as the finding on the question whether the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved was arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence let in before the Labour Court. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the Labour Court referred to the evidence let in before the enquiry officer only to show that the evidence given before the Labour Court is supported by the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and it is not a case where the Labour Court has relied upon the evidence gathered during the domestic enquiry. He referred to the charge and submitted that even assuming that the first and third parts of the charge were not proved, the second part of the charge was proved by the evidence let in before the Labour Court. He referred to the; letter, dated August 25, 1981, of the petitioner and submitted that the charge of assault was proved and the petitioner, has not established the charge of victimisation. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has also not established that Natarajan assaulted the petitioner, and the Labour Court after considering the past record of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the charge of assault was proved and exercised its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and held that the termination of the petitioner from service was justified. Learned counsel submitted that there are no reasons to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions :
(1) T. Seeralan v. Second Additional Labour Court (1986-1I-LLJ-85) (Mad).
(2) South Indian Sugars Ltd. v. First Additional Labour Court 1989 (2) L.L.N.1044.
(3) Lalu Mahto v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1987 (1) L.LN. 643.
(4) Central India Flour Aiills v. Mohd. Ishaq Sagir 1988 (1) L.L.N. 1032.
(5) V. Venugopal v. Management of Reed Relays and Electronics (1999-III-LLJ(Suppl)-1455) (Mad-DB).
(6) Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Vellore, (1997-II-LLJ-833)(Mad) (7) Triveni Structural Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1997 (2) L.L.N. 1066 (8) M.V. Sivaji v. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Ltd., and Anr. (1999-l-LLJ-185) (Mad-DB) (9) Ashok Leyland, Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1999-I-LLJ-788) (Mad) (10) N. Mohandas v. Southern Industrial Polymers, (Private) Ltd., Ranipet and Ors. (1996-TII-LLJ(Suppl)-518) (Mad)
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The charge levelled against the petitioner reads as under:
"Vernacular matter omitted."
9. The charge consists of three parts. In so far as the first part of the charge is concerned, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that except the evidence of Natarajan, there was, no evidence to establish that the petitioner has abused Natarajan near the room of the foundry Manager. The second respondent has also not challenged the finding of the Labour Court which went against it and hence, it is not necessary to deal with this matter any further on this aspect.
10. The second part of the charge is that the petitioner came to the chemical laboratory, assaulted Natarajan with the notebook pushing the table on him. The said Natarajan has testified about the incident and he has repeated what he had stated in his complaint. One Jothirajan and another Chandramohan who were examined before the Labour Court have given evidence about the incident of the petitioner beating Natarajan with note book. The Labour Court found that the charge levelled against the petitioner that he beat Natarajan with note book was proved by the evidence of Natarajan as well as the evidence of Jothirajan and Chandramohan. Though the witnesses have not spoken about the alleged pushing of the table on Natarajan, the Labour Court found that the evidence of Natarajan, Jothirajan and Chandramohan is reliable and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of all these three witnesses.
11. The Labour Court also found that there was no proof for victimisation alleged by the writ petitioner against the second respondent company, and the finding of the Labour Court holding that there was no evidence, or proof to establish the charge of victimisation is a finding of fact, and there are no justifiable reasons to take a different view on the said finding. I hold that the finding of the Labour Court that it was not due to trade union rivalry that the incident was fabricated is based on evidence given before the enquiry officer. Though the said finding of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside, yet there is no independent proof from the petitioner to establish the same as it was the case of the petitioner that it was due to trade union rivalry that a false case had been fabricated, and the petitioner has not discharged the burden cast upon him by letting in evidence before the Labour Court.
12. Though I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Labour Court that the complainant Natarajan did not assault the petitioner is based on evidence recorded before the enquiry officer, yet, as already held by me, it is a definite case of the petitioner that Natarajan assaulted the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to prove the same before the Labour Court when an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to establish his case. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner has not examined the persons who were present at the time of the alleged incident before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has also found that the petitioner has assaulted Natarajan in the laboratory of the second respondent and the evidence of Natarajan, Jothirajan and Chandramohan as relied upon by the Labour Court to hold that the said charge was proved. The Labour Court has also found that on the basis of evidence of one Jagannathan, who was examined as management witness No. 4, the past record of the petitioner was not satisfactory and the petitioner had been imposed certain punishments prior to the alleged incident.
13. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Anr. (supra), and the decision of this Court in Thanjavur Textiles v. Presiding Officer (supra), when the enquiry was found to be unfair and effective the Labour Court should have confined its attention to the evidence adduced before it and it is not permissible for the Labour Court to rely upon the evidence let in before the enquiry officer as the petitioner has not consented to look into the evidence let in before the enquiry officer. The decision of the Supreme Court is categorical to the effect that when the Labour Court found the entire enquiry proceedings as defective, that would not constitute a material on record within the meaning of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and in such case, the enquiry proceedings should be ignored altogether. Though the Labour Court was not correct in its view that the Labour Court was not precluded from looking into the evidence let in before the enquiry officer, on the facts of the case, it is seen there were independent evidence let in before the Labour Court. The second respondent has examined three witnesses before the Labour Court and on the basis of the evidence of the three management witnesses, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner assaulted Natarajan with notebook on his left cheek in the laboratory of the second respondent. The Labour Court has also found that the evidence given by the three management witnesses are reliable. The Labour Court has, no doubt, referred to the evidence given before the enquiry officer, but the reference to the evidence given before the enquiry officer was made only to find out whether there was any difference in their version made before the enquiry officer and not for the purpose of placing reliance on the evidence or to support its conclusion independently arrived at by the Labour Court. It is not a case of the petitioner that there was no fresh evidence before the Labour Court, but the Labour Court chose to place reliance on the evidence given before the enquiry officer. On the other hand, in the instant case, the second respondent has let in fresh evidence and the Labour Court in Para 16 of its order has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence let in before the Labour Court, the charge of assault levelled against the petitioner was proved and the petitioner had indulged in disorderly behaviour in the factory laboratory. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable, as the Labour Court, as already observed by me, has referred to the evidence let in before the enquiry officer only to find out whether the witness had given the same statement before the enquiry officer. The Labour Court has referred to the evidence let in before the enquiry officer not to draw support for its finding as its final conclusion is not solely based on the evidence let in before the enquiry officer as the ultimate finding of Labour Court clearly shows that it has arrived at such finding on the basis of the fresh evidence let in before the Labour Court which would constitute a material on record for the purpose of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in Neeta Kaplish case and the decision of this Court in Thanjavur Textiles case are not applicable to the facts of the case. I hold that the ultimate finding of the Labour Court is based on the materials on record. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding that the middle portion of the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved.
14. In so far as the past record of the petitioner is concerned, though in the order of termination of service, the second respondent referred to the past conduct of the petitioner, the second respondent has chosen to lead evidence before the Labour Court with reference to the past conduct of the petitioner and the petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness who was examined on behalf of the second respondent-company with reference to the past conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission that the past conduct of the petitioner was taken into account without affording an opportunity to the petitioner as the witness who was examined before the Labour Court and the petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the Labour Court has found that the past conduct of the petitioner was proved by the evidence let in on behalf of the second respondent.
15. The next question that arises is whether the order of dismissal is proportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. I find that the Labour Court exercised its discretion and found that the petitioner has assaulted a co-worker and he has behaved in a disorderly manner in the laboratory affecting the discipline of the factory. The Labour Court, after taking into account all relevant factors of the matter, has exercised its discretion and found that there was no reason to interfere with the order of termination passed by the second respondent.
16. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent in T. Seeralan v. Second Additional Labour Court (supra), wherein a learned Judge of this Court held, that:
"....committing theft had been considered as a penal offence in the interest of society to maintain law and order in the country and to strike out standards, when they occur in industries, would be detrimental to the interest of the industry and helpful to the second respondent...."
17. The Division Bench of this Court in South India Sugars, Ltd. v. First Additional Labour Court (vide supra), has also taken the view that when the employee was found guilty of riotous and disorderly behaviour within the factory premises during working hours, the punishment of dismissal could not be stated to be extreme and could be regarded that it was disproportionate to the misconduct. A similar view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Central India Flour Mills v. Mohammed Ishaq (supra) and by another "Division Bench of this Court in K Venitgopal v. Management of Reed Relays and Electronics (supra).
18. In Dharmapuri District Co-operative v. Presiding Officer Vellore (vide supra), this Court has taken the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court should not entertain a misplaced sympathy towards a workman and should not prejudice the issue from the angle of rehabilitation and the question of rehabilitation and reformation could arise in a case of minor delinquency or misconduct and similar view was taken by this Court in M. Sivaji v. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company, Ltd, and Anr. (supra) and in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (supra).
19. In N. Mohandas v. Southern Industrial Polymer, Ltd., Ranipet. and Ors. (supra), this Court has held that, when the Labour Court's findings are based on the past history and conduct of the workman and, it has held that the charges have been proved and the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the charge, the High Court should not interfere with the findings of the Labour Court as the Labour Court is the sole Judge of the facts.
20. The Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999-II-LLJ-682), has laid down the following principles of law which are relevant for the purpose of this case :
"....The Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of the fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding in such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority the same has to be sustained..."
21. Following the above judgments, I hold that the Labour Court has considered the matter and found that the second part of the charge that the petitioner assaulted Natarajan with note book in the laboratory was proved which would amount to disorderly behaviour inside the factory premises and the Labour Court after taking into account the past history of the petitioner has found that the punishment of dismissal is quite proportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. I am of the view that a pragmatic view of the event has to be taken. I hold that the action and event have no value in themselves, but only take their value from the force which they represent. The acts of disorderly behaviour inside the factory and assaulting a co-workman in the factory premises during office hours represent that there is no value either for righteousness or for the orderly rule of conduct in the factory and the action would not pass the text of a reasonable man in a work spot during working hours as the provocation for his breeze with his co-worker was not established.
22. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.