Karnataka High Court
P. Naresh vs The Management Of Skf India Ltd on 4 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.57881/2015 (L-TER)
BETWEEN
P. NARESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O.LATE B.N. PUTTARAJU
R/AT NO.3, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSA PALYA
BENGALURU - 560 043
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF SKF INDIA LTD.
PLOT NO.2, BOMMASANDRA
INDUSTRIAL AREA
HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 099
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER - HR)
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. S. N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2013 AS AT
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR
COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.37/2010 AS UNJUST AND
ILLEGAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.37/2010 dated 05.10.2015 by which, the Labour Court directed the workman to be entitled to Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent - SKF India Limited 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'Management' for short) as Setter-cum-Operator on 09.04.1990. It is his claim that he has rendered blemishless service throughout till a charge sheet was issued to him on 20.11.2008 alleging unauthorized absence of 74 days from 01.01.2008 to 20.11.2008, which amounted to misconduct in terms of Company's Certified Standing Orders. The reply submitted by the workman to the charge sheet was found to be unsatisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold domestic enquiry against him. The result of the domestic enquiry was that the petitioner was held guilty of the allegations of unauthorized absence and culminated in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service by an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 04.06.2010.
3. The workman immediately raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the said Act challenging the 4 imposition of penalty of dismissal from service upon him. The Labour Court held the enquiry against the workman to be fair and proper and on its exercise under Section 11A of the said Act held that the workman was not unauthorizedly absent for 74 days but in all was for 24 days but, nonetheless, the charge of unauthorized absence was held to be proved. On the evidence and the statement of the workman that he was suffering 'Irritable bowel syndrome' and he was not in a position to function standing for 8 hours in the Management in the nature of duties that he was performing. The Labour Court came to conclude that a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs would be adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case in lieu of reinstatement as the Labour Court was of the opinion that the penalty of dismissal from service qua of misconduct was disproportionate.
5
4. The respondent - Management has not challenged the award but the workman has challenged the award on two counts that the finding of the Labour Court that the charge is proved is erroneous and the relief that the Labour Court granting compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement is inadequate and no reasons are assigned to grant a meager compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the petitioner.
5. Heard Sri. V.S. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.N. Murthy, learned Senior counsel for Smt. S. Roopasri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has grossly erred in holding the charge as proved as for the 24 days that the Labour Court holds the charge as proved. There was adequate material to show that the 6 petitioner was ill and could not attend duties. He further contends that the Labour Court while moulding the relief did not even consider referring the petitioner to a medical board to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the workman was fit enough to work with the problem that he had and would submit that he had 20 more years of service left when he was imposed a penalty of dismissal from service and the compensation that is granted at Rs.5.00 lakhs is grossly inadequate.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Management would contend that the workman himself appeared and pleaded his inability to work for 8 hours standing with the problem that he had, in these facts he would submit that the Labour Court has committed no error in passing such an award. He would submit that the amount of 7 Rs.5.00 lakhs has not been paid in lieu of pendency of this writ petition.
8. The misconduct alleged against the workman in terms of the charge sheet dated 20.11.2008 was that of unauthorized absence of 74 days. Though the Labour Court holds that unauthorized absence is 24 days nonetheless it is the unauthorized absence and misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the Management and would submit that the Rs.5.00 lakhs compensation along with interest that is granted is more than adequate and would seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8
10. The facts that are not in dispute. The workman joined the service as Setter-cum-Operator in the year 1990 and had rendered service upto 04.06.2010, the date on which, he was imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. In the interregnum, the service of the petitioner has been good and appreciated and has been bad, for which, he has been warned and imposed minor penalties. The ultimate penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on an allegation of 74 days of unauthorized absence. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the unauthorized absence was reduced to 24 days on analysis of evidence that was led in before the Labour Court. The Labour Court declines to grant reinstatement after holding that the penalty of dismissal from service of unauthorized absence of 24 days was disproportionate to the charges leveled, solely on the ground that the petitioner was not in a 9 capacity to perform the duties that he was performing at the time of his dismissal, since the nature of work demanded that he should be standing for 8 hours and with the problem that he had - 'Irritable bowel syndrome' it was unimaginable that he could function and awarded compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement.
11. To arrive at a conclusion, that reinstatement cannot be made, the Labour Court did not refer the petitioner to a medical board for an opinion that he was not fit to perform his duties in future. That having not been done, merely on the basis of a medical certificate that is given by the petitioner and a certificate obtained from Wockhardt Hospital by the Management, the Labour Court concludes that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner cannot function in future. The fact was in dispute as the workman himself has pleaded that the 10 syndrome that he had was controllable and would not take away his future employment.
12. The Labour court does not reason how and why the compensation is restricted to Rs.5.00 lakhs as the workman was left with 17 years of service when the Labour Court passed an award in the year 2013 as he would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2030. On all these grounds, the Labour Court requires to reconsider the matter afresh by referring the petitioner to a medical board either of the Health Department or medical board, a consensus between the Management and the petitioner, the medical board is required to make an assessment as to whether the problem that the petitioner had suffered at the time of dismissal from service still persists and later arrive at a conclusion with regard to fitness of the petitioner to perform his duties.
11
13. The Labour Court having come to conclude that misconduct of the petitioner of unauthorized of 24 days could not have resulted in penalty of dismissal from service was erroneous in directing payment of compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. Therefore, the exercise of whether the penalty that is imposed is proportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved is also to be reconsidered by Labour Court. It is after this exercise, the Labour Court shall consider the report of a medical board concerning fitness of the petitioner to continue in the post.
14. This exercise shall be passed by the Labour Court after coming to conclude whether the misconduct of 24 days alleged against the workman could result in penalty of dismissal from service. 12
15. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
1. The award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.37/2010 dated 05.10.2015 is quashed.
2. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Labour Court for consideration afresh.
3. The parties to appear before the Labour Court on 22.01.2021. The Labour Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six months from 22.01.2021.
4. The Labour Court shall keep in mind the observations made in the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK