Madras High Court
Arokiadass (P) vs Government Of T.N. And Ors. on 1 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1995)IIILLJ34MAD
JUDGMENT
Sathiadev, A.C. J.
1. This writ petition is filed to quash G. O. Ms. No. 1097 Labour Department, dated 22 May 1987, by stating that once again in spite of the earlier order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1986, the Government had declined to make the reference by referring to circumstances which are irrelevant and inappropriate.
2. While declining a reference on the earlier occasion by G.O.Ms. No. 259 Labour, dated 6 February 1986, the approach made by the Government was that the petitioner was more bent upon finding fault with the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer instead of denying the charges framed against him, and for the proved charges, the punishment imposed is appropriate. For reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1986 the matter having been remitted once again the Government had taken into account the nature of the charges and has observed that assaulting a security guard would only invite a punishment of dismissal, and if the behaviour or attitude of an employee in taking the law into his hands and resorting to violence goes unchecked, it will become impossible for an organisation to maintain discipline among workers. It took note of the strength of the workers in the establishment and came to the conclusion that if a reference is made, it would act as a great hurdle in the day-to-day administration of a public sector undertaking.
3. The order reflects a failure to understand the purpose for which a reference to a Labour Court is proposed under the Industrial Disputes Act. What has been decided in the domestic forum is to be tested before a judicial authority and if the management is able to prove to the Labour Court that the action taken, the procedure followed and the punishment imposed are in accordance with law, then it could never be prejudiced, and what it does is to justify before the Labour Court the action taken by it. Hence, when a reference is contemplated for finding out, whether the management had lawfully terminated the services of an employee, it cannot be construed that a reference to a Labour Court would bring about hurdle in the day-to-day administration of a big public sector undertaking. If it justifies its order, then no consequence follows in the establishment. If it fails to show that its action was lawful, necessarily the right of the employee will have to be protected and safeguarded. He would have the right to seek for re-employment and get all the benefits, and when such a successful person reports to duty, it cannot ever be held that an organisation cannot be run with discipline. As to whether he had assaulted the security guard or not in the manner charged, and whether it has been proved by proper evidence and by following the proper procedure are itself challenged by the petitioner. On these aspects, the Government has no Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon. The contents of the affidavit would disclose that he had alleged bias, and had also claimed that the enquiry had not been properly conducted and that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and that the provisions of standing order 62(2) had been contravened. When these aspects are alleged and they require to be considered and under Section 10 of the Act when the Government is disabled to go into these aspects, it cannot but refer the dispute.
4. Yet, after the disposal of Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1986, the Government had called for a report from the Commissioner of Labour who had in turn asked the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to hold an enquiry and based on the report given by him on 28 March 1987, the Commissioner by his report, dated 16 April 1987, had concurred with the views expressed by his subordinate. It is this report which is relied upon by the Government for arriving at the conclusion that if any lenient view is taken, obviously meaning that the Labour Court is likely to grant relief on some technical plea, then it will be impossible to run an organisation and to maintain discipline among the workers. On the face of it, this is certainly a wrong manner of approaching the issue involved as to whether it would have any impact on the relationship between the employee and the employer in the region which is likely to be adverse. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, though lengthy in dealing with this aspect, only in the concluding portion, after referring to the number of workers in the establishment, states that if a reference is made, it would act as a great hurdle in the day-to-day administration of a big public sector undertaking. He would then state that the circumstances involved are not different from what had been taken into account in Writ Petition No. 831 of 1986.
5. Hence neither the report of the Deputy Commissioner nor that of the Commissioner discloses that the relevant factual aspects had been taken into account as to how far the impact of his claim for reference would affect the relationship between the management and the petitioner in the region and hence the principles laid down in Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu (by Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department) 1988 I L.L.N. 172, had not been properly applied. Hence there being a wrong understanding of the scope of the said judgment, and this being the second occasion the reference having been declined, the first respondent is directed to make appropriate reference to the proper forum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a steno-copy of this order. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.