Gauhati High Court
Management Of Cossipore Tea Estate vs Bagan Panchayat Of Cossipore Tea Estate ... on 4 April, 2014
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Writ Petition (C) No. 4205/2007
Management of Cossipore Tea Estate, P.O. Cossipur, Cachar,
Assam (owned by Cossipore Tea Company Private Limited.
a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
and having its registered office at 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road,
3rd Floor, Kolkata-700 020) and is represented by its Manager. ...... Petitioner
Versus-
1. Bagan Panchayat of Cossipore Tea Estate,
Cossipore Tea Estate, P.O. Cossipur, Cachar, Assam and
represented by its President, Bagan Panchayat of Cossipore Tea
Estate, Cossipore Tea Estate, P.O. Cossipur, Cachar.
2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Cachar. ...... Respondents
3. Bharatiya Cha Mazdoor Sangha,
Banipara, Silchar, P.O. Silchar, District- Cachar. -----Proforma Respondent.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murarka,
Mr. P. Bora,
MD. Aslam
Mr. B. Sharma,
Mr. D. Senapati, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Singha,
Mr. O.P. Sunar, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2014.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
The Management of the Cossipore T.E. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management') challenges the award dated 19.09.2006(Annexure-XVII) in the Reference Case No.4/97 rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar, whereby the reference on the lockout of the T.E. was answered in favour of the workmen and against the Management.
2. I have heard Mr. S. Murarka, the learned counsel representing the Management and Mr. S.K. Singha, who appears for the Bharatiya Cha Mazdoor Sangha (Respondent No.3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mazdoor Sangha'). WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 1 of 6
3. Earlier a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D.A. Act) on the following terms:-
"1. Whether the management is justified for not paying wages/reations during the lock-out period with effect from 11-4-96 to 11-7-96.
2. Whether lock-out declared by the management Cassipore T.E. Cachar legal/illegal ?
3. Whether the workers are entitled for wages/ration for lock-out period ?
4. If not any relief."
4.1 The Management in their W.S. before the Industrial Tribunal contended that a section of the T.E. workers having opportunities of higher earnings in the nearby Silchar Town have neglected to attend to the T.E. work and have carried out several destructive activities i.e. encroaching T.E. land and selling the same to outsiders, damaging the T.E. water reservoir leading to damage to tea bushes and shading trees, destroying trees and mature tea bushes, grazing of cows and buffalos in the garden area and since all these activities were damaging to the T.E., a warning notice was given on 17.03.1996 to the T.E. workers. The mischievous elements were also warned that if these negative practices continue, the Management may have to declare lockout in the T.E. 4.2 It was further stated by the management that on 07.04.1996, 3 belligerent workmen namely, Nanda Kr. Mal, Baldev Hajbor and Lalita Mal assaulted the Assistant Manager of the T.E. and the Tilla Babu and because of this assault, a show cause notice was issued to the 3 attackers on 07.04.1996 and they were suspended from duties.
4.3 But at the instigation of the 3 suspended workmen, on the following day i.e. on 08.04.1996 a second physical assault was made and furthermore the Management staff of the main division of the T.E. were gharoad and confined by a group of workmen till 4 p.m. on 09.04.1996.
4.4 Faced with above acts of gross indiscipline and physical assault and confinement of the Management staff and its crippling affect of the production activities of the T.E., a notice was issued on 10.04.199 by the Manager requesting WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 2 of 6 for maintenance of discipline and for cooperation to run the garden in a peaceful manner.
4.5 But because of the belligerent attitude of a section of the workmen, the T.E. could not start any productive activity and eventually on 11.04.1996, lockout of the T.E. was notified.
5. But in the W.S. of the workmen, it was claimed that the Management had denied the due facilities under the Plantation Labour Act and the Rules to the workmen and this is why the T.E. workers were nurturing longstanding grievances against the Management. Moreover, three leaders of the agitating workmen were allegedly victimized by suspension. On this basis, the lockout was contended to be unjustified.
6. The learned Industrial Tribunal after considering that the Management had failed to fulfill the legitimate demands of the workmen and noting the incident of misbehavior with a lady worker of the T.E. on 09.04.1996 and the victimized suspension of 3 members of the Bagan Panchayat, concluded that the lockout declaration was unjustified and the differences could have been resolved through police help, without closure of the T.E. work.
7. While examining the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, it must be noted that following the settlement arrived at on 04.05.1996 before the conciliation officer, the lockout notice was withdrawn on 04.05.1996. Therefore by considering the lockout to be continuous from April to July 1996, the learned Tribunal committed a serious error of facts. The 11th April lockout was in fact withdrawn w.e.f. 05.05.1996 through the notice dated 04.05.1996. But although cooperation of the workmen was requested for resumption of work, further obstruction were created by a section of the workmen who resisted the restoration of normalcy in the T.E. WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 3 of 6
8. On 08.05.1996, a section of the workers went on rampage by forcing open the factory gate, entering the factory premises and assaulting the factory staff. The Manager and the Assistant Manager were chased from their workstation to their bungalows and the bungalows were damaged by pelting of stones. The T.E. Manager himself had to be rescued by the police and the willing workers were coerced by the vested group to remain silent spectators. This is why a police complaint was given on 09.05.1996 to the O.C., Udarband P.S. by the T.E. Manager. Considering the serious obstruction to resumption of work by a section of the T.E. workers and also because of the continuous threat, intimidation and assault, a notice was issued on 09.05.1996 suspending the work in the T.E. and declaring that wages will not be paid during the duration of the work suspension notice.
9. As the issue was getting out of control, the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar were sought and a joint meeting was held on 22.05.1996 in the conference hall of the Silchar D.C. In that meeting the office bearers of the Mazdoor Sangha agreed to abide by the earlier settlement arrived on 04.05.1996 before the Conciliation Officer provided, they are made a party to the conciliation proceeding. But the District Magistrate had to reflect the correct position i.e. that the representative of the Mazdoor Sangha deliberately absented themselves from the conciliation proceeding.
10. Subsequently on appeal by the saner groups in the T.E., the Management, withdrew the work suspension notification on 31.05.1996 with the declaration that the T.E. would resume operation on the principle of no work no wage basis. Thereafter, a tripartite agreement was arrived at on 11.07.1996 between the Management and the Mazdoor Sangha before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar. Under the terms of settlement, it was agreed that the Management will take appropriate decision on the wages/ration for the suspension period. However WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 4 of 6 the Management reserved its right to take disciplinary action against the 3 charge- sheeted workmen. But thankfully both parties decided to resume work w.e.f. 12th July, 1996 and consequently, the T.E. resumed normal operation from that date and this position continues till today. Therefore in this case the issue that is to be answered is whether the lockout was legal or illegal.
11. The Supreme Court in Management of Kairbetta Estate Vs. Rajamanickam reported in AIR 1960 SC 893 had described lockout as the antithesis of a strike and a legitimate weapon available to the Management to persuade the employees to see the management's perspective and to accept their demand, by refusing to furnish work to the employee except on the terms of the management.
12. In this case from the developments leading to the lockout notice, what is seen here is that the Assistant Manager and other management staff were physically assaulted by the workmen and the belligerent group illegally confined the managerial employees. The Estate works were crippled and the Manager himself had to be rescued by the police from the rampaging mob. The Conciliation Officer in the settlement arrived at on 04.05.1996 recorded the background of the lockout notice and on assurance of both sides for mutual cooperation, he ordered for lifting of the lockout w.e.f. 05.05.1996.
13. Even then when the workmen resorted to violence and attacked the managerial staff, normalcy in the T.E. couldn't naturally be resorted. In this backdrop when the Manager himself had to be rescued by the police to protect him from being fatally assaulted and because of safety concern he was forced to flee out of the T.E. bungalow, it would be irrational to expect the Management to continue as silent spectator. Therefore, I am of the view that declaration of lockout by the Management was legal and the contrary declaration made by the learned Industrial Tribunal through the impugned award dated 19.09.2006 is declared to be incorrect.
WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 5 of 6
14. For the above conclusion, I find merit in the management's case and consequently the impugned award dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure-XVII) is quashed and the reference is answered now in favour of the Management and against the workmen.
15. With the above declaration, the case stands allowed without any order on cost.
JUDGE Benoy WP(C) No.4205 of 2007 Page 6 of 6