Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S Integrated ... vs Sri G Ravindra on 6 June, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NOS.3193/2009 & 1932/2010
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NOS.3194/2009 & 1058/2010
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NOS.3195/2009 & 1927/2010 (L-TER)
IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.3193/2009 & 1932/2010
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S INTEGRATED ELECTRIC
CO PVT.LTD.,
BANGALORE-560 058. .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.R.ANAND, ADV.,)
AND:
SRI G.RAVINDRA
S/O.SRI GOPEGOWDA
BANGALORE-560 091. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, ADV.,)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
2
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.26272/2005 C/W 10099/2009 (L) DATED
29/07/2009.
**********
IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.3194/2009 & 1058/2010,
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S INTEGRATED ELECTRIC
CO PVT.LTD., PLOT NO.497-A, 4TH PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560058.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.R.ANAND, ADV.,)
AND:
SRI RAMALINGAIAH,
S/O. JOGAIAH,
R/AT: C/O. KALASAIAH,
DOOR No.8, A BLOCK,
3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN
DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 079 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, ADV.,)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.26271/2005 C/W 10100/2009 (L) DATED
22/07/2009.
********
3
IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.3195/2009 & 1927/2010,
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S INTEGRATED ELECTRIC
CO PVT.LTD., PLOT NO.497-A, 4TH PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560058.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.R.ANAND, ADV.,)
AND:
MR. R. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O. RANGAPPA
R/O. No.256, NEW COLONY,
NELAGHADHARANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 073 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.S. SUBRAMANYA, ADV.,)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.13038/2005 C/W 22612/2009 (L-TER) DATED
12/08/2009.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, K.L. MANJUNATH, J. DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.26272/2005 and 10099/2009, 26271/2005 and 10100/2009 and 13038/2005 and 22612/2009 dated 29.7.2009, 22.7.2009 and 12.8.2009 are called in question in these appeals by the management.
2. Heard Sri S.N. Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri K.R. Anand, for the appellant and Sri S.S. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in first two matters and Sri K. Subramanya, learned counsel, who is appearing for the respondent in the last matter.
3. The facts leading to these appeals are as under:
The Respondents Sri G.Ravindra, Sri Ramalingaiah and Sri R.Chandrashekar were all working in the appellant management. For the misconduct of the respondents, charge sheets were 5 issued against each of them and an enquiry was held and thereafter, they were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, a dispute was raised before the Labour Court in Bangalore. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper. The Labour Court also held that the Management has proved the charges leveled against the employees. Considering the nature of charges leveled against the employees/workmen and imposition of penalty of dismissal, the Labour Court held that it was harsh and touches the conscious of the court to invoke discretionary power vested u/s.11A of the Act, and set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement into service by denying 30% of back wages to Ramalingaiah and G. Ravindra and 20% in the case of Chandrashekar by with holding two increments with cumulative effect with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court both the management and the workmen approached the learned Single Judge by filing the aforesaid Writ Petitions.6
4. The Writ Petitions were disposed off by the learned Single Judge modifying the award only in regard to the back wages payable to the employees confirming the order of the Labour Court in regard to the remaining extent. The learned Single Judge held that the workmen are entitled for the back wages at the rate of 25% from the date of dismissal till the wages u/s.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be paid and further held that wages paid u/s.17B of the Act shall not be disturbed and the workman would be entitled to continuity of service. The workman did not challenge the order of the learned Single Judge since they are satisfied with the order. The management has filed these appeals being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in not setting aside the award of the Labour Court.
5. Before considering the grounds urged by the respective parties, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the background of these cases:
7
The appellant - management has engaged about 150 employees. Out of them, some of the workmen have joined CITU Union and the remaining persons did not become the members of any Union. Certain workmen started agitating in regard to the activities of the Management alleging that they have been exploited by the Management in not paying dearness allowance and uniform etc., According to the workmen, an attempt was made by the Management to deny the benefits. Therefore, enquiry was initiated by issuing charge sheet against in all 22 workmen. By holding an enquiry, all the 22 workmen were dismissed from service and all the 22 workmen raised the dispute before the Labour court.
6. We are also of the opinion that there is no necessity to consider the case of all the workmen who have approached the Labour Court and the results in each of the case, as we are only concerned with the present three persons namely Chandrashekar, Ramalingaiah and G. Ravindra.
8
7. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that though charge sheet was issued against 22 persons, as there was a settlement between some of the workmen and the Management and some of them have taken VRS by taking all monetary benefits and some of them have been reinstated into service.
8. Under similarly situated circumstances, a co- ordinate bench of this Court in regard to three workmen Seetharamappa, C. Shivaram, B.G. Nalatwad in Writ Appeal Nos.3198-3200/2009 & 1522-1524/2010 dated 17.09.2010 has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge wherein, the order of dismissal has been set aside by the Labour Court and back wages has been restricted to 25% and the aforesaid judgment of the co- ordinate bench has become final, because the Management has accepted the same. So, in this background, we have to consider the contentions raised by both the parties in these appeals.
9
9. As stated supra, the charges leveled against all the employees by the Management are more or less similar. Though enquiry has been conducted separately in regard to each of the employees, the main allegations against each of the employees are as hereunder:
(i) Riotous or disorderly behavior during work inside the factory premises which is an act subversive of discipline, in that on 25.3.1995 at about 12.35 p.m. along with G.T.Ravishankar who was under suspension and Seetharamappa, Nalatwad, Ramalingaiah and C.Shivaram did not go back to your place of work but went to the office building shouting indecent slogans and created scene in front of the customers.
(ii) Striking work illegally and without any justification only with the view to get some union recognised and to withdraw the suspension orders pending issued to some workmen.
(iii) Conduct which violated the common decency and morality of the community, threatening and intimidating any of the employees of the company in that, on 10 25.3.95 at about 12.35 p.m. you went upto the office of the Managing Director along with Ganesh Kumar, Nalatwad, Puttaraju, G.T.Ravishankar, Ramalingaiah and C.Shivaram and shouted indecent and objectionable slogans personally again the Managing Director, apart from other slogans and gesticulating and demonstrating violent and angry signals and thus created a tense situation and scenes.
And in certain cases in addition to the aforesaid charges, it is alleged that the workmen have misbehaved with the co-employees in not allowing them to discharge their work on the ground that they have not joined them for strike.
10. Sri S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following legal contentions:
(1) According to him, when the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper and when there is an order of dismissal of service of the workmen by the Management, the Labour 11 Court could not have used the discretion vested u/s.11A arbitrarily as the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Vs. N.B. Naravade reported in 2005(1) LLJ 1129. (2) The second contention is that even if the Labour Court had interfered with the order of punishment in setting aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement back wages shall have to be paid from the date of passing of the award of the Labour Court and not from the date of dismissal. To support his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Vs. K.P. Agrawal & Another reported in 2007-II-LLJ 128.
(3) He lastly contends that the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 3198-3200/2009 & 1522-1524/2010 dated 17.09.2010 cannot be blindly followed by this court even though the same has not been challenged by the Management.12
In the circumstances, he requests the court to allow these appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, so also the award passed by the Labour Court by confirming the order of dismissal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Writ Appeal Nos.3195/2009 & 1927/2010 Mr. K.S. Subramanya, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court contends that since there were no allegations of whatsoever nature against these respondents earlier to the alleged incident in question, the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the Management was dis-proportionate to the nature of charges. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the same by exercising its power u/s.11A of the Act. To support his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India reported in 2008-III-LLJ-1 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Messrs Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., 13 to show that the charge of use of abusive language against a co-employee would not be a ground to dismiss the workman which amounts to victimization and unfair Labour practice. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents request the Court to dismiss these appeals.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points require to be considered by us in these appeals are:
(1) Whether the discretion used by the Labour Court in modifying the punishment of dismissal by awarding lesser punishment.?
(2) Whether the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge were justified in directing the appellant-Management to pay back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.?
(3) Whether the order of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge requires to be confirmed or modified.?14
13. As stated supra, the facts which are not in dispute are that as on the date of the incident, there were about 150 workmen working in the Establishment of the appellant - Management. There was a Union formed by some of the workmen and the remaining had not joined the union. It is not in dispute that some of the workmen indulged in shouting slogans against the Management and in the process it is alleged that some of them including the respondents herein have used abusive language to the colleagues for having not joined them for demanding their legitimate rights with the Management. Out of 22 workmen, the dispute is only with regard to three workmen in these appeals. The case of the remaining workmen have been settled. The charges leveled against all the 22 workmen are similar in nature. The Management has settled the dispute in regard to the remaining persons and at this stage, it is submitted by Sri K.S. Subramanya that in addition to these three workmen, the case of other two workmen are also pending before this court. Be that as it may, the dispute is only with regard to five workmen. 15
14. Having seen the evidence let in by the Management and the workmen before the Labour Court, the nature of language used by the workmen is not serious. They were all in mob. They only demanded the co-employees to join them to demand for legitimate rights. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has modified the order of punishment. We are of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. vs. N.B.NARAVADE (2005-I-LLJ-1129 SC) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as a straight jacket formula, as in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the workmen therein had used abusive filthy language against the Superior Officers. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that these cannot be lesser punishment than dismissal and in addition to that, there were other serious charges. On the contrary, the judgment relied upon by Sri K.S. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the case of VED PRAKASH GUPTA vs. 16 MESSRS DELTON CABLE INDIA (P) LTD. (1984-I-LLJ- 546 - SC) is more applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case because the language used by the respondents in the present case is against the other co-employees for having not joined them in demanding their legitimate rights. In such circumstances, if the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal, this Court cannot hold that the use of discretion u/s.11A of the Act is bad in law. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.
15. So far as the second point is concerned, we have also seen that in respect of two of the respondents there were other charges. Considering the nature of charges leveled therein also is more or less similar in nature. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the same.
16. So far as awarding of back wages from the date of dismissal is concerned, the said point has answered against the respondents and not in favour of the Management in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble 17 Supreme Court in the case of J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD. v. K.P.AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER (SC 2007-II-LLJ-
128). Following the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the respondents are entitled for back wages from the date of award of the Labour Court and not from the date of the dismissal.
17. The next point remains to be considered by us is:
"Whether the award of 25% of back wages is required to be interfered with by this Court?.
18. In regard to the same incident, in respect of the remaining workmen, when a co-ordinate bench of this Court has confirmed the award of 25% of back wages in Writ Appeal Nos.3198-3200/2009 & 1522- 1524/2010, the Management has not challenged the said order and has complied with the order of the Division Bench. Hence, we are of the view that there cannot be any discrimination between one workman and another workman when the charges leveled against all of them are similar in nature.
18
In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed-in-part, modifying the order of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge only to the extent of awarding of back wages at 25% from the date of dismissal till the date of award of the Labour Court. It is further clarified that the workmen are entitled for back wages from the date of award of the Labour Court at 25%.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL