Madras High Court
The Management Of Mettur Chemical And ... vs K. Govindarajan And The Presiding ... on 14 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(97)FLR449], (2003)IILLJ57MAD, (2003)1MLJ456
Author: R. Jayasimha Babu
Bench: R. Jayasimha Babu
JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
W.A. No. 1220 of 1998
1. The appellant is the employer. The respondent workman had been in the service of the appellant from 1968 to 1976. He was discharged on 28.2.1976 after he was found guilty of certain charges of misconduct regarding which enquiry was held. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 330 of 1977, in which, an award came to be made on 8.8.1978, wherein, it was held inter alia that the enquiry held was fair and proper, that the charges levelled against the workman had been proved, and that the punishment imposed was in no way disproportionate. The respondent employee had been discharged by the employer with one month's notice. At the time of his discharge, he was earning Rs. 25.50 per week, the monthly wage being Rs. 127.50.
2. Twelve years later, he filed a writ petition in this Court numbered as W.P. No. 3028 of 1990. Learned single Judge having allowed that petition with a direction for reinstatement and with continuity of service and payment of 20% of the backwages, the employer is in appeal.
3. The learned single Judge has not dealt with the question of laches in filing the writ petition. Nearly twelve years had elapsed from the date of the award till the filing of the petition. The explanation offered by the employee was that he approached the Legal Aid Board from 1979 and it continued till the year 1990. No material in support of that had been placed before the Court. Learned single Judge has merely relied on the averments made in the affidavit. He has, thereafter, proceeded to reevaluate the evidence that was examined by the Labour Court and has concluded that though the charges have been proved, the punishment imposed was disproportionate. We have to notice here that even in the affidavit filed by the workman in the writ petition it has been stated that he was willing to forego the backwages.
3A. We are unable to sustain the order under appeal. When an industrial dispute is raised and decided, the parties to the same are entitled to rely upon the resultant award, unless the same is within a reasonable time questioned before the appropriate forum. The normal period of limitation for a civil action is three years, and in many special cases much less. A long period of twelve years from the date of the award can by no means be regarded as mere delay which could be readily condoned. Such delay is gross and the resultant prejudice to the opposite party substantial. Such laches on the part of the person who seeks to challenge the twelve year old award is not to be regarded as condonable merely on the strength of what he avers in the affidavit that alleged attempts had been taken to secure help from other quarters for prosecuting this case.
4. Even apart from the question of delay, we find that the Labour Court had not committed any error requiring interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Labour Court's order is an elaborate one which has taken note of the entire proceedings of the enquiry. It has considered the charges and evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer to prove those charges. It has examined the manner in which the enquiry was held and it has, thereafter, formed the view that the charge proved was of such character as to warrant the dismissal and that the discharge of the employee instead of dismissing him would certainly not require any interference. The discretion vested in the Labour Court has been rightly exercised taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the impact of such misconduct on the discipline among the work force in the factory. Needless to say no production can take place in any manufacturing unit unless the work force is reasonably disciplined. Acts undermining such discipline are not to be brushed aside, especially when an award had been made upholding the termination and interference is sought into such an award more than a dozen years later.
5. The writ appeal is allowed. Though the respondent has no right to make any claim against the employer, having regard to the fact that he had been in receipt of a sum of Rs. 127.50 for the last four years by virtue of the order made by the learned single Judge and he has also now attained the age of superannuation, the employer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which, the counsel for the appellant says on behalf of his client that the appellant will pay. That amount may either be deposited in the Labour Court for being paid over to the workman, or that amount may be paid over to the workman directly. Counsel says that such payment will be made within three months. It is made clear that this payment of Rs. 10,000/- will be in addition to the sum of Rs. 127.50 per month which has been paid for the last four years.
W.A. No. 1403 of 19986. For the reasons stated in W.A. No. 1220 of 1998, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 13418 of 1998 is closed.