P A Girish S/O. Late P.P. Aiyappa vs The Management Of M/S Bpl Ltd on 12 February, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

P A Girish S/O. Late P.P. Aiyappa vs The Management Of M/S Bpl Ltd on 12 February, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH comm: or KAm«1A'm1<A AT BAHQALQRE
DATED THIS THE 12% DAY" OF' FEBRUARY, 2a<:§9 _,
BEFORE  V L. V.
THE H0N'8LE MRJU STICE S;;é}E3,§"§AsL:"Es<.';%.'i:§w;: '"5: "

WRIT PE3'I'i'TI{)N N0.xvailiizznoeagg-$3121.'   ':  7
BETWEEN:    "   ' _
1.

RA. Girish, M V' " V' % V ' S/0. Late PP. Aiyappa, Aged about 32 yc~':a:£s, «. .

NC.-.6, Rajputh Nivas ' 'A 431 Cross, Nsar Adarshgi Yitiyaéamzi, Nethaji Circle, M.éﬂ:hjkem',' -

BaI:gaiore~560;:}5':'a'é1..~

2. M'.Jana1ﬁh.-«ﬁn, ,- % S/ca. G. I;.%__;~u4<5iazai;,'«:.; V Aged a§:7butTV32..3?ea1s';fVV' _ _ No. 1 2 1:53, 49:» -Cr€>;é-.,V "1.§t"Main«1'?{__)ad,-, L. N. Coldny, .Yésh1Vai1.{hp2;f;- ., é ' ,~ Ba:t1gal01'e-5L6C)éG22--. ' ;.,.PETITi{)NERS ' " L (ByaS. ,?;z1anthara1nan, Advf} I . Méa:).ag¢n1;én txof M,Is';-31:-L' £§:;.:,if&=:d, 1'?t"--..}{. M; Madras Road, V Av'a}aba11i, Bandapuza, ._ '-»Banga1'm3=:>560 049.

'V V{H.C)-..4_Situat6:d at N0. 14, {ghuréh Street,

-- Ba.:I1g'al0:re-560 001.} . u "Tile Managemant of BPL Sanya Technologies Limited, H.O.Si.¥;i1ated 31 No.13, Kaaturba Road, BPL Towers, -3- the *::verl<n.1a3:1 of the same compamr and further submitted that", enquiry' under Section 33(£2){b} of the Act means. Wheiﬁar a proper domestic cmquiry in accoréance with 1'e:}€;%.ian"'£3 211163] Standing Orciers and principles of been followed, and whether the dismis;-;::aIM01'c%c;* eviétmce adduced before the domestic ., e,m;:21oye1* had come to a bona--ﬁd<§: 'c:§>"1':;ae::»l1::isi.cV§1iV._t}1:=s1ti €DiiVj;i1#5fy9é€'V.WaS 'V guilty and the dismissal :1&§>':-- é1ﬂ1_m:3V'1:1;;t toa' labiaur practica 3336 was net irzteuiﬁagtzi tg_:»v 'iimployes. These aspects of the mattggf ;'Ia':'r"ib11na1. He also submitted t':}:;a§,_ to consider the however, whather domestic ()f the Standing Orders or ruias and pﬁﬁcipieé is foﬂowed or not, are 131:2:

paramopgni cﬁnsidemﬁén $231 the pmpose of granting approva} :§(3~§f2;)(b) 5:16 Act. Ha aise submitted that, in case suﬁers from any defect or inﬁrmity, tbs VV"Labouf'---{30:1,tft':1iiF't§ie Indusﬁial '£'1:i¥:)una1 xvﬁl have to find out on " 'it;_s "nwn oi1v _ﬁ1e basis -sf assessment of the evidence adﬁucctd 1:0 ﬁnd out, whether there was a jusﬁﬁcaéon for 1, and if it ﬁnds that, {here is justiﬁcation in granting C s=-*:;2l?

~§{:,f/1"

-9-

approval of the Giﬁ-$1' sf dismissai, in such a event, order of approvai relates back to the date of dismissal.

10. He aisc; stibmiited that, before the T]'ib131}B,,.1VV"{f§t'i')»L1:,.i(i came '£9 the ceﬁciusion, it should ﬁnd out as to Whetﬁiér _ acceptable evidence to s11p};:sor€; its oonciusion. if. Vt':'v§ida_3ncé"

dees not support the alleged miscondtxict, j;oé;1é1;1si:<3::.. be decision without any evidence. _ 1 1. He further irelieq on 'j.?_.}'dg:%I'i€';~8'i1"»,._AAI"€:A}§V':§'{}I'tf3tZi in 2o05(:11) LLJ page }{.)'}'5 inv -~vs- STATE OF GUJARAT AND 'fhe Apex Court in case of p0ss§ss§%3i:1« §&!vié;iifd;:$;3rti011ate to KIICIWII source of éafﬁcial was §1onourabIy acquitted 1 <:2:z.§ii::'.'VVI');1S<:ﬂVVV'<31:1 sama sat <::af facts and evidence the dismissal order passed against thzrv aaiai ém*Q;103*ée Was.' set aside. » HvAe'«.£i1i%{}:;£;_r relied on another judment of the Apex cmgirs"i1apo£té%i;--ix:~:f'1"§8c:(1} LL} R16 in I313 matter of GLz§X{) VL..aB9R}§'?'o1:;>}§;.s' LIMITED -~vs- LABOUR COURT, MEERUT mm submittad that, misconduct enumerated in " Qrdars mquzlres that, the incident er misconduct VT Witkiin thtz factoxfy premises of the estahiishmeni or -19- Wiihin the ViCi}.'1if.}=' and met the misconduct or any act Gutside the factexy premises 01" beycsné the vicinity of the faetaij; <:§;si;§§.e.'§3e . cexlstrued as a miseonciuct within {I16 meaning __-if "g-€33:-uiiliiag order.

13. He also submitted that, ;;,,;§é:.;q~* was passed when the cencﬂiaﬁen groceetiings ew'erev ;§e1:£3i171g before the industrial Tribunal, it 1:0 Secizien 33 of the Act and in this ﬁle-';1 a eempleint before the ¥;t1d11sm'a1 Tﬁbuee}. 22, 23 and 24;' 19§9. He sub1j;ii£$e:§_' loeaiﬁiifg entire evidence, none 01' the éﬂegation made by the managemeni;'te,§i'%§;'§?e« : is no evidence 'or:

sshaw that iizﬁoived in the said imtident. He submitted thauf,' e§e.:;au§:; these two peﬁtioners were also fshoxvix z.~::{.acc'~g_sed. 'that itself eleess not amount to misconduct A1L2t}l€'S:S'{3{1€}{'f3:(5I1\fl:Ct€(1, Mare 59, when the said criminal case ended these petitioners, it eannet {Se held that, t1'1e'pet:i§e'neI\3 have committed an oﬁenee. .. AA 1?~'%~._ Sf; Semeshekhar, iearneé counsel appeaxéng for the respegzeieiit management submi's:ted_ that, on 25.3.1993, eﬁijiiéyees {ref the company were t;rave11iI1g in a company bus it} I-

3'! 'K -31- reach the werk place. The said bus was stopped by SC} to £30 workmen including the efﬁee bearers. at Madiwala. They peﬁ:§ed kerosene and set the bus at blaze and gtxrevented passengers even to alight from it. As a result of tliqg ' lady employees of the eomgxangs 'tie the and some 0f them sustained '1t1ju1ies. '§_n:'yiew the incident and in View of the t11reat.e<L:.$g'"is:en Beezers V against other eo--workers; it "'§@p0e§3i;iJ'1e~"Vjfor the management to eenduet the witnesses.

It is in this back§'«;=_1 1:1t;i_, seas paeseci. He also subm:_.itie;c1'__ if was helé, the _f_:._s$?e{$s._f:c5i%-:;::;:; a_"};eSitﬂiex1_f;o5 secure the Witness, as memagemeﬁ mast of WG_rkX}é§e'§e. "wfe:=e[ 'ﬁigfitened and were afraid of coming out to give e§ridenee."'He" that, even though demestie enquiry 4'-gz=fa:~,e.11ot he1.c1[ hewever. three witnesses were examined ﬁée two eﬁeials anﬁ (me eyewimess. The Tribuxaai bvexithe said evidence has come tie: a p:t'i::x::a--~fe.e:ie ' "eene}1;At$,-_ien fijetiﬁaoners have committed misconduct. .. Heeiso submitted that mezely tzeeause the getitieners aeqlzﬁted by the criminal eeuﬁ, is no younei to held that, % itxey leave not eommitfeé miseomiuet. He suhmitted that, beneﬁt, _€:§?éd€:nCe $0 prove 81:: misconduct. ._1'2_ of doubt is given to the petitioners and haw: been acquitted in the Crimjllai case.

16. He aiso submittiid that petitioners V. that, they are the members of tha union and the formed by all the empioyees of 12 «ofI.¥1§:' i%:s§p<§r;c!£3:iLi;--V' company and most of them were "

threatening the management as '--.v_éB_ as t§i1»:=:__ (;:the-2: E:-jéivorkers "

from attending to duty. in tijﬁs CO}1I1?;';il:i0Ii;*~I_11€}; 'Sét.the_.::ompany bus on fine, as a result <$f.'éﬁ}§;;;_ﬂﬂ:03r¢es died. These petitioners Ware acgutaggl :'i'i:;£<:2z:1not be said that, suxzh act.' :f&2w.}' é' u submitted that, though the factory premises, but it was in gznion demand? it 3'11 thffﬁti ciI*cumsta11<;;és,L'it '..'5;¥#l'(ii('%I'S'fZ()O(i that, it has happened within tn; mfgsinitgg of ttzé fabtoiy premises and submitted thai, it I-'gs. $1' s¢i'1'<>Vi:§--."'1uiécrQndu¢{;'"H€ also submitted that. getting direct eyé1v§€::%é.s .§ﬁ.4.4:5f¥)¥'$:..:miSC9BduCt is diﬂictllt and on amount of 'Vvazious»..4circum$&3::ices, the Wiftnesses have not wme forward to ~ :§._ej..><:~se, héxvﬁirer, the evidence is led to Show the circumstances as"-{oV.hca§7 this incildant has happe:11ed and OW3 is ayewimcss §}1as been Examined befere the Txébuxzal. These wihmsses _1g_

17. He aiscz submitted that what is required to prove before the industrial Tribunal on an applicatien under Section 33{23(b) Qf the Act, is net the absolute proof cf the Crime 9fr};he miscenéuct, but pri111a~fa<:i£: matzértiai to show..~«~~th&a{__""

peijﬁaners have committed misconduct and to gxﬁéni {ha- _ Industrial Tribunal on apprtciatioacx C}iv'v.:'ti'{V{',b"'§£"']'.Q>-;_<g.11*E5f:iﬁiigﬁv that thﬁ mateziai produceci do grove the vépxiingi-fac:l.e 2 He aise subI1:1}'.t£e& that, ¢:I()II1];)2":l1iy.h:'.r,_:';:":3,Si1ﬁ:'.:§~,1'~g(;Z.1V leeks Vitshas V effectsd ﬂansfer of the that, considering the gravity of $16 miscantiuct cammitted by the" pmduced bcfare the 'jgjgw-v_#=y'V@§£ma~facie Case of miscsneiuqt .... it is Gnly :33{2){b§ app1ication:t.v_'a3:x:i t?;?§) f}:'i§::§:'1 "avail the opportunity uxréer Section 19 of Act.

1_E3::.:.I:vt:;_LAi;1"1<f: above subnliasions, the p0i11't$ that suiisﬁ 1123-r_§::.)z1si<Aic:1fé;'ii<_)1;t am as undczrz n {he prinuz facie proof necessary" for gzppréivaf under Section 33{i2){d} of the Acf? ~52'; Vvi/ifhefher the incident ef misconduct autsztie the A' * factory premises and viciraiiy amounts to ' mismnduct within ihe meaning of Chase W 2'8.1(3?j Of the Standing Orders ofB?'i€zSh, Pfzysics ﬁabaraiary India. Limiteci {BPL}? ' ('3) unit' againsi the warlcman of anotf2€r..1;rj£§£V. attract" the Sianding OrcE'e.}'S""fe«' "workman? A "

19. Undispufeﬁ facts in are:

serious incident admitt€dI§=..q_VVV'»';}lﬂace 1999 involviug burnitlg of a Coiﬂigéﬁgf B43999 near Madiwala, and causing injury to severa} $6: dispute that, 21 criminal casﬁ was " Felice fer an oﬁence 148, 324, 3126., 332, 307, 302, 435, 42?;"--5Q"€r_B';" zécgg with Sectimit 149 {PC involving 5&9 aocusﬁai includiixgihesﬁ two petitioners as accused N032-9 ::,:;:d 3@., ' not in dispute that, all 49 accused was the :3:1e1iihéi*3_«0f'ﬁ1€:.'_ It was also not in {iiS}31it6 that, We A 'ir«':}rls::;::é;":~, wﬁci in {the incident and others, who get injursd, " N 'T .. 31539 xi&*<:;.z*kme3;1 working in different units of the: same It is alse net in dispute than {V Additional Sessions Bangaiort: by his judgrnent in S.C.1'-!s:>.51,'20€>() dated 13111 VLLV«j..'VAV"'€-ﬁftober 2003 has convicted same of the accused by' holﬁizlg " that, they were iixvczlved in the ﬁffence. The: incident as such in Iruztidenf 0f mix:-tconduci between L£!{}fkI?i{I_l?';';V_:';}.j:C' '7'

-wt?"

W W18- fade casc, no smndazd of proof that is raqujred '£0 prom the (>ﬂ"e;:1(::€ before the Crimina} Court is I}.€C€SSEiJi'},?.

ﬁnding, the industtial Tribunal grants approval of':%h§:i dismissal. J _ :24. In order to grant appmvai ;%3¢_A{rﬁ0n ';t}f~3{';2)(b) Act in the absence of a domestic VV an the basis of the evidence Igizd bitfxtii-<2. 'Vxwjcmﬁst giiﬁé"a fade ﬁnding of the Iniscondzlct a'§s,fé1iﬂ1jg§;t"L'1r; whom it is aﬂtzged. This aspe¢'t_; <}f_ by the decision of the Apex .396 in the matter of LALLA WORKS LIMITED AND ANO'I?;{ER}:~;t {#3 under;

"I2. ='3'he poi-ritiibzi ﬁhiﬁ. emerges from tfze above qu01ed""de'c§s£6,ns'--.§.)j"~fh.£s Court may be stated ;i'h:u.s: In prqdéedings under Section 33(f2)(b) ef ""ahe__% 1'%.,,¢¢,. tfie'v-------j-zzrisdic:tion of the Industria?

V Tz~i;'E2i.as2a1ra€,zl<s conﬁned :0 me enqu:'ry as It} fr') ..wf2.g¥thér. proper domestic enquiry in a.;x:érr§£1n§:eV--v*':;9ith the reievant rufes/Standfing Q "'vGrder.a%j'ja%zd principies of naturaf justiatre has =.__bee:»*z' {ii} whether a prinm facie case for a§z'smissaI based an legal evidence adduced béfqfe the domestic fribunaf is rnade out; (iii) " whether the emplayer had Game is a bend ﬁde fgonclusion that' the empfoyee was guiity and {he dismicssaf did' not amount to urgfair labour praatzbe and was not intended to viciimzse the ernployee regard being had t0 the pasitian sealed by the decisions cf this Court in Berzgai Bhaidee Coal (30. 22. Ram Prabesh Singh, Tifaghur Paper Mfils Co.Ltd. v. Ram Naresﬁ M26"

at from any angie, I find that the irngzxugned Cartier is not sustainable in Law.

Acc0rdi.11g}3r, the Writ Petition is allowed. b ertiier dated 23.9.2005 passed by Bangaiere in Serial App1icaﬁ01:jVNos.1:4f'2G'Q€) 24} quashed. No order as to cost.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court