Karnataka High Court
M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs Narayana Rao S/O Late Bujangarao on 26 March, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT 03' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 91:' MARCH, 20 1.2. Q
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVINI):
W.P.NOA4838/3094 (i;:fER)
C/W
W.P.N0.5450/2005 .3: w.I=;1\1o,545'1,zA2<)'o5',;
w.1>.No.7o31 /2095, W.'P;'NQ;'1'i'*3_39/2005;
W.P.N(>._1§'241?.9,;{2vOf)5.
W.P.No.44s3s/2904;
BETWEEN: %
M /S.BHARf{'l="'FR,IATZ WERNER LTI3';;~-
MACHINE TOOL Nu'¥;NUFA€TU.RERS,
PE:ENYA§ ' % "
OFF' TUMKUR=ROAD';- '
BANGALORE - 545o''a.2_: '
RgPRE;sE:N":'§:D RE' 331%
;éRi§s1:z%E:m.%%%.A %
SRi.S;E€.,§y§i$;E£E{A '«...v
gm' 1?s$'Li;;,;&a1R%;:;fi::a:'%§?}'Bafgwg §;§E?G{§A'§E}
« AS:::;:s;;a§é;¥A§%§g 3519
5 %s_r,s<{:: {gm E§jJz%l*\EC;A§'.§?:S
T .1§<:§@AB0%;? fig' EEAR5,
SC 'PETETEQFQEER
NC).?':'3I ZN?' CRGSS,
33?'? MAIN, NARASIMHA LAYQBT,
BELNGALORE ~ 550 822. ,IRESPQN§E§f¥F?I._V
(BY SRI.K,S.SUBRAHMANYA§ ADVOCATE?)
THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILED IINDER~'z2Rj"IIC':E:5sA 22%;»
ABID 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION "I'NDIA TC}
QUASH THE AWARD DATED O9IOQ.2O'O~4* MADE "%,E_E3
ADDITIONAL LABOUR c:<:>UI~2'I';g_ '-._BIzI_I\I<:;I;éeII;:*;I<>;Is:'
I.I>.No.52/:200I VIBE ANNEXURE--.:§iI
W.P.NO.5450/2005: A
BETWEEN:
M/SBHARAT FRITZWNERNER-TT;,'1'D'..f-,_ . I ;
MACHINE TOOL MANUFA€:TURi$RS ..
PEENYA, OFF 'IfI;.II-./II§tsijR: ROAD
BANGALOREZZLZ I I
REPRESENTED ITS PRESIVDENTm_
SRI.SNMISHRA;A~.IV5»V_V PETITIONER
{BY SRI.§IRA'§?1{'E\§D' Bf:T5EE;"'---;3Ii3VOCATE ma A,EZE*$.Gi§PTA.
ADVOCAISE} ' . I
SR§,}:3;IN':EG5:EFP§';<v..AF'
S/Q?"'R;E:V;§i'§}'s;;3§:§§}g5;§3?1% sIIIxIm§AI:%.:*?E
" .17i$§{'»?%i&'§éEBI%IV§Ii 'I335?
f\:§ZAR WATER? '£.'§*;E\§§:
_ .§'§f:i"'§Q5.L$§§E:;:§§ §r£ RE$§@I?xI3gIa?I'
5._': '{E'§:SR.§I§£i;«SgSU§R§;§§¥EAE%%"%?AI z%S"iFCICI%'?Eé}
TEES 1?%?'RE'i"' ?ETETIQN :3 FELED EENDER z--:RT£cLEs 225 & 227'
SF' c:>NsT:'rm':oN GE?' INDEA PRAYING Ta QUAs:<a_THE
AWARD Dz%fFE:D 2311,2094 MADE BY THE F133': ;~:I3,mL.
LABQUR COEEREI BANGALQRE 35: ED. gm, 53;g::@;'1-%%z*1I3A%r;
ANNEXURB G. "
W.P.N0.545 1 /2005:
BETWEEN:
M /SBHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTIZ2'--.
MACHINE TOOL MANUFACTURERS-§"~»
PEENYA OFF TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALROE 550 022 5 _
REPRESENTED BY ITS pRE;s31:>.E;N1%.' ;
SRLS.N.1\/IISHRA -- i PETITIONER
(BY sRLARAv1N}::: Ai'£)'i?O€:ATE"v«E7£)R A.Y.Nx:;U1>TA,
ADVOCATE) " " »
AND: %%%%
T.T.JOSEPI-E.
3/0 'E',QJE'HO7E':z::AS
MAJOR -
58 No.@:,/ 13
..... 1' V
":'EZ.SH¥%E£'€'E'§?IT{?{
BAi*«EG;'%i§@RE». >5:'Z~?{:% Q22
V ' SZv§'E1E§.B:';'€?L§.i§R §:
- j%5:g:::..;g;§E; "'Ef','}T.JSSEPE§
. §.{}s3'£§a. % 4Tfi§v:,é:::xa
'-f§'E%1%;?I%;:%:§;3A9§
A i=..§<;.:%~:;£:>§f:'E':x;*s:@2;
v?£'§§§:§%%Am'B§:;§
V \\4M%m«mm--mv\xnm.»xwx_»
EAMGALORE ~ 5&9 Q22. RESPGNDENT'
{BY SRi.KaSTSUBRHAE%£ANYA, ADVOCATE; ROR LESS}
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLESf"22€;.:
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RRAYTNO TQ"'*Q{JASH'--TEi_E"'V
AWARD DATED 27.11.2004 MATD*E:O'<«r;Y, T?TRs*Tf
ADDITIONAL LABOUR
I.D.NO.40/2001 VIDE ANNEXUR_EI~G
W.P.N0.'7031/2005: .
BETWEEN:
SRLBNARAYANA RAO
S/O BHUJANGA RAO A
AGED .50 YEARS, '
DOOR NO.'75A, :2 CROSS; 4; O
NARAs1MHALU'IAYOUT"' A T_
BANGALORE-----A~Av56Q 093, ~
A
$6 PETITIONER
{BY SR1K.S1:-SU3E§§H§}i;§:§§(5Té';'A._AiL§K?'QCATE]
AND:
§$*1EL§§_AGE:fx;i TOR D'§TAR,A
E'm'1"Tz;:«§.?x{E<f;R§\:7Eé:;I1i4§;5;{'TT'}T,
?EEE$:'L%.;'V'?{E§S}§X?V_;§1'£f§HP{§R RORT
§.R1E§{§«.R;£1QE?€E';§.""..,,_
'»...RiEPRES__ENTE';E'é ~;:};';' SSS RRRSTDERT
SRE.S,E\EE§'£ES}iR£:
RES?i3NDEN"§'
4:'é.:éV{§u'§.--.:S*ET.§;R§5§1?:?~§§} RARD: ADVOCATE: ROR AfT'I?*%.Q§.fE'T§D
-..ADé;O<:AT';E:E
COURT', g;RANGAT,OREOi"ATAT.¢
THEE \aVRET PETTTION IS FILED EENDER ARTICLES 228
& 22? GE' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINC} TO QUASH
VIBE ANNEXURE} N DATED 9909,2004 P'ERTAINEN{}._TG
THE DENIAL OF 89% BACK. 'WAGES AND IMPOSENCS:
PUNISHMENT OF CUT OFF THREE INCREMENT3'
CUMULATIVE EFFECT AND HOLD THAT THE "§ET'IT1oNER
IS ENTITLED To BE RETNSTATEE WITI'i""F{j'LL"V. BACK"
WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE "ANI3.
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS,
W.P.NO. 17339/2005:
BETWEEN:
T,T.JOSEPH
3/0 SRI.T.O.THOMAS,__ '
AGED 41YE:ARS
R/A.No.1089,4TH«;:Eo;Ss »
K N EXTENSION, TRJ}VEN_I; Rogxim
YESHWANTHP1 » -
BANGALOR,E~56G"
SINCE DEAEEYEY EES... N' * "
SMTa,K¢D.e::EAR§§ ~
i5.f';'{} LA'iE'CE§. "§,_fE'.J__QSE?E~§-- ---------- M ~
Nf_)f.7?98,, *3-<::'EEEEE:ET "
TST~:E*.VEEwEE:\s'EE;E:;==%~E>'
ETEEEEEE;
B,z'--:?€Gg%.LC>RE;'; 55:; 922.,
PEEETEGNER
§{f.S.S?J§RE§§E\£%N"{§E A§if'SC§{F%";;'}
AND:
MANAGEMENT GE' SHARE'?
FRITZ WERNER LTBT,
PEENYA, YESHWANTHPUR POST
BANGALORE~58O O22
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI.S.N.MISHRA
{BY SRLARAVIND BABU, ADVOCATE :'F_€)R ATTT${;N.OURTA;'-.T
ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS F1LED»AUNODERSA.RT1CLES 226
<32: 227 OF' CONSTITUTION'~QF 'iNDIA{4.PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PORTION OF THE "AWARDi--.}DAT'ED' 09.09.04 VIDE
ANNEXUREM PASSED BY" THE jADDIT=TONAL LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE, WHERE _'I1'f-_IVS I HELD THAT THE
PETITIONER IS GUILTY OE Tlifif FRAMED UNDER
CLAUSES 26(1), 4A;N4DT'TT2,E(2)..;OE_THEgCERTIFIED STANDING
ORDERS AND 1={UN1SHMENT.'i.TOFA'CUT OFF 3 INCREMENTS
WITH CUMLULATTTVE:;EI?FECT 80% CUT IN BACK
WAGES WAS A1';/ERDED.4V"BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
CERTTORATE OR ZMVV1i:.'Q1:H'ER'xvVRIT OF THE LIKE NATURE
AND TO HOLD "THAT "-CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST
THE RETTTTONER ARENOT 'F'R€)\/'ED, THAT ACTION OF THE
MANAGEMENT AMOUNTS TO VICTH\z1ISATIQN FOR
EE£§ITEE&f§:*5{TfE;:___"i'3§TDE" EENEDN ACTIVITIES AND THAT THE
?E.:T§TZ«f}T\ZfE':R' §;?sE':E§ITETLED TO SE RETNSTATED WTTH FULL
BAEZK .~§?'QAGE:S;T ;€3~:"}?\fT£T\i'U§'Z'Y' OR SERVICE AND ALL OTHER
CGE*§§i£}§';,si§_'j£;?E:E*§'T"'§Te?TL».$EiNEE"E'{'S.
/~V,~.xȢ
WZPNG. 12429 2005:
BETWEEN:
RNAGAPPA
S/Q REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.14ES/L
SOLLAPURADA BADAVMIE;
WARD N032
5TH MAIN ROAD,
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE ~ 560 091
~g, PE;f:51T1oNE;R
{BY SRIgK.S.SUBRAHMANY'A; gmV;3icA*:*?;;
AJ2: ._
MANAGEMENT. V
FRITZ w'E:RNER_L'i1:>,;, ' 4 Q_
PEENYA, YESHWANT"}i£PU R,'
BANGALORE ~ 56<3,022j%, * M V
REP BY 1Ts%v~pR4Es:D%:it§1f% _ _
SRLSN. M{SEi_R;'1 V A "
58'? SRE.3;R:*;§?iN§ "B§':Bij, §::§é«'Q<:ATE}
oét REJSPONDENT
§$EETIQN :3 FELEE EENSEE ARTEQLES 22%
& 2:?;?"'»Z_;_§F *'{:@3*~¢:%3"%;*§§?:a§ {Ea mag Pggyiiasa Ti} gfwggg
?£_>RTI{§§'¥§7--Q§' mg AWARE D3333 2'm:..2e%4 VEBE
"v§E'€EXU'RE4§'§E "FERTA£N§\EG TS THE SENEAL SF' BAQK
"-«V..:':vF§>{;:%{:fE<§w §f?v'1POSE§?Z} TEE; ?§_E§\§§SHME;E\§T GE' CE}? {}?'§'
.1 4_§E§CRE§i/§EEKF"§'S 'WZ'§H {:iJMUL%T§EfE EF§3'EZ'C'§I BY
:SS2T§Al\;§":§: 8?' THE ,'§'.,lE{.E EATBRE M33 HQEB "?§ii»'3;'§' Tfii
§'"£"¥i}E.'*~§EE ES E§'§T§'fLEB T8 BE REiZ?\lE{R%j'?ED VJETH FULL
giégzw
'v5f'-fhreei iZ1;Ci'€E'I},€l'i§S with C1E,}1':ii§a§;§'1£€ €§'§€{3-Ex
BACK 'WAGES, CGNTINUETY SF SERVICE ANS ALL GTHER
CONSEQUENTEAL BENEFETS.
THESE: we}? PETITIQNS CQMENG {EN E'QR..i?¥§;;-'§Rfi\;'.G
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE: THE F'OLLQWING:__ " e ~ ---
9...&_1?._E_B:
Writ petitions 44838/200.4%
W .134 5451;' 2005 are filed by M/&5.VBhe.1*a{"F1;it:i
{hereinafter referred to as sake of
ecnvemlenee] questioning by Labour Caurt
whereunder dispute_::'a,jsed:"b'y' allowed in
part: by setting and directing the
management. e.--i:,o_ into service to their
eriginsl: p0.e§':_ Service and modifiring the
erder sf p':}1i{i;¥';;3f1I}'1f3%V1:'L'v_'4'A€;f'"g§§S1'11iSSa1 fie eienial ef three
e:%z§i'u§at::'Je effeei by wiihhelding' 80% back
:z.:ag'ee..- '%§:3:*};3.*g?,ve::['Vi3ave 3389 eafieej; qaesiiea {he game
'-.e:é?a:'de' ;;_%3;§sa;§ iaheuy Coast in EPEEFEE §>e§ifier:s '?i331,f§»iGG5,
2$%§~, émé §?33§§2G®E'i aggfieéxeé is fie extegzi sf
°~.:?e§1:s-r§:;gf_8£i?% Esaeéi Wages 351:? impeeéfig guzxésfzmeizi £3? éezzzéei
isarnsd
2. Eiearii Sri.E{.S.Subramanys§ gs-sass}
appearisg for wsrkinsri and Srifafrvinfi Gupi:§,_
sounsei a sarin for mama emen1:. Perussd tbs
p _ : s ._
awards as also the records secured ::i?E)Vr1*:' the' L;ab§'u.1_3C'0Vurt;s
Learned csunsel appearing fqr pa:i=:issV_. ha§f€:_~A
arguments in respect of thsse "seo11sctiVVe'Iy such
these writ petitions are tiflgsn isgether
and a common ordsr is noticed that
articles of though
are different, this common order
Writ petitions' :1n.s1mv1'1V1anagement in so far as
it relates is" ..§éu::h' iaksn up isgsther and
éispsseé g}? 12;; 2:his"s.Q::*:::1s:: szfisrt
_W.V1§;'448$3';'.'§:6Q4 C wW:P;703: 2905
3. ' :3g3)3:i""iS? wsflgnan is he hafi mséisé {Es
-...T'_3g:sré§:i3s:; is _A'1-Ezsié 3 Eigériiszzizag/sxésp siriks as {}éE¢§.;?;g%'?
V..:isz:s:Z§:g°__ ésfisiésrsbis Esss sf grségssiisn aria? said as:
7af:s::sf:1f%;€:'{ss ssrisus misssmfiusi 312$ 23 is an as? s::'svsrs::?s sf
sssss 77
ii?
fiieeipéinee Q31 artéeies ef ehazge being §esu.es:i werkznan
issiied e reggi}? and net being satisfied with {he a
domestic enquiry was erdered and in the dome_efé£e'--«e::q§::.er}f' _
charges Ievelled againet workman wag; he1d.--"t:;-be pr::~:;e=:L
Thereafter? management issued secend:1"she0W=._e'a,1i'ee" fieqtiéée
enclosing enquiry repert and"TVea1z1ed tliewie
Workman and after receiving fi:1e;f}agefi'1«efi1§ fiat being
satisfied with the reply from service
by order dated 084,:12;_.'99i:"' said order,
workman raiseé. iéevurt under section
10(4wA) of ;»vB§:spuf,.eev Aeiev-Re:spondenI:~management
appeared 'fi"'1eé;vV}f_ét.a.teme:1§t. 011 the basis of
which Labeur €:'$?_V1','1T'§ for is determinatien, As
fie" 23?1;ei:E"_i: e'::% <f._:e:re.,eAs?{i»e V"en-qigiry held againe: the werkmae was
fa%:*',--v.§e;e§3e§ éeigei .;§eE.id.eame to be adjedieesiieé as a preiémiearjg
'-sieezie 5.3% ef fthe meme {fled by :aze?:§{_n:1a:': er:
.._TeT'_j§3,GV£%,2C¥%2';_ile.?3eur ifeéiré: aeeeeieé the seed meme gee' by
4*-.Verfie;*V'_A<:%5f:e.é 3E4,€}'?.2§{E2 eee tee issue it: éhe affiemeéiife.
'5¥5.'E*:evr;ee_;f*:e:"§ mgéiee wee peeiefi fee ezrifiesrzee eegereifig
E
3.1
'§/'§C€iII'1iS8i§G§;. Parties 'sendereé evidenee and en appreeiatien
ef eviderieeg Laban? Ceurt by its award darted Q§gQ8.2V.{;$~"{)%iEe.;_;ee*:
aside the erder of dismissal, directed reinst_zj£iem.en_i_" f.§)__f' _
wofizrnan into service, modified the order of pti1:iefi131e'r1t'f:o:n
dismissal to denial of three ineremelite with. 3ie11:1f;u.1éL't§\%7efeffeéii
and erdered for withholding of Wages Vt0T"v:éLr:.i."eXterit
80% .
4. It is the ec)41_1iev:1ti<)p"'ef'ié§;.:xfii1evd_ appearing for
petitioner»manageeiteyig --Vwhefil _' " Court held
domestic proper it should net
have interferefi/4" of punishment and
admittediy'sn.a!fi'---.e§:v=iiee the instance sf workman anci
is eeitlemeni prevailing at :he
reieégsinf, " §:e§)ii'«3,»T,'" _e'§'iime age? reserting 'éie eriepweirike had
' V'-..?2.eempefed"predigeeiien 3;: 'zhe faster; 331$ en aeeeuni ef eaié
--. aafeefigivaiz, wefiiere 2;: {be fE1€iO§"§.r' eiiem;3ted éihe week fer
'V-.efe<3é;:=é £2355.' hears 331$ eéeggpeé See §§G§1};§'§'iQ§1 :'eeu.iiéng in
"§ii1:me:i_é3 3:333, £3 sue}: he eeniezzfis E3135: impeeiiiee, ef iesser
X"
f
{as
12
punishment by Laban? Senna ws.s eryeneeus and unesiied fer.
He would further contend that when there is ne Vieiin1'issiion
or unfair iabeur practice adopted by rnanagemeni;'7ank:i~ _
the action taken by management was not 0I1"'i",1'1.é:k§*;I;€3?i1ITiACi V<_:>ui'~ 'V
victimisation it cannot be held that Vpuniishineenfi-ifnp6se.d
management is shockingly di=§p:np0rti0na:e.i"v: "jx>x;§;;3L1ici._i»
submit that award of Labnur the
quantum of punishment seeks for setting
aside the award passed dismissal of
dispute in toto ifneiiiorder of dismissal
passed by 1 fi\:,}1.:$»:if51ied upon folkiwing
Judginenisge V d V i
[i} see? LL§«i_Vii?.8r V' (5) i959 se 923
{iigigbi gggg... iiiii {ea i§§i(2) iiiii sex;
is)' "£7§}iuVn3'e<:3§' '?'é~ in i95i LL} :3
{8} i§83;§ij LL} 54$
2;
i %
13
5., Per centre: Srigfifiesubramanyeg éearned eeunsef: fer
weriizziars wouid eubmi: that feseriing to snap etrikeV.ia?a's._Ven
aeeeunt ef exigeney ef situation and it was a spone§jéi:1eé§::.s2" _
0f worklnen which resulted on aecountpf spu?f"0f «thve'in0me:1t""
and as such said act does not amountéte :_:11is§eoe:1_<iL1ee'é: :irif(i..'iti1ie
net vioiative of any mem0randuh_1"-of seitlernené e1:i:ered--v1 intofl'
with the management. He there is
me material placed by that there was
instigation by this ;;"ter1dere<:i before
enquiry officer :'ci'<V;;)V--es not prove that
there was for snap strike. As
such he bf Labour Ceurt hoiciing
demeefie 'enqeeiry - as fair and preper and
a;>_:_;::'i',%_i'd §::------§<:eiding that eharge ieveiled ageinsé
ax:e:"E{m:e.::"3,3'-,§:*§Ved"--is eentrary :9 reeerds 232$ as sueh he
"-...Seeé<:e the same' fie Weuid further C€%E1i€§}&
.,¢_f_j§§;3;T1*;~..:?»?E1i§ee "iief§3oV:.:r $92211 énveked eeeiéee HA ef Efiéueiriai
is §1'E?L€§'§f€}"'€ zaéih 'she erdef ef dieméeeai E: hag
3 arbitrary I§_1:.EE'§1f'}€E" aeé 323%': aeteé judieieeeijg 313$
34
iiiere was {:0 jizsiiiicaiian for withiioidirig 89% wages far a
duratign sf fivs :y'€8.}C"S and deniai cf ihre-6 i}.21.€]:¢€I}v1€1'i}V:t.S*_"';r'av~7.}:tE:'1
cumulative effect was harsh, unreasonable and a:t§§iira.if§~*--i._ ':»%'__e7' _
would contend that when no issue was fr2iified:j'Vvrégarr;ii11_g "
victimisation, Said issue Could not have b«j;':'e13-'COin_sidéréii:"a.t "zsili
and it should have held thai "--act iirf 'the:
amounted to victimisation (if _i':3:jLAhi:;~i'1&tgi;;ir:i%L1t€ trade
union activities. He ii that non
Consideration of €vid§:'11§:¢ regarding
victimisation to Workman. On
these writ petitien filed by
managemeriigrifii filed by workinan,
in $upp::>1":'9f has rsiied 22330:} the f€)HC}\x'\?ii'1§
2 .....
g:;:+i§?3 E/i;§T._€i:78 {SC} i3; i9??? {1} L :85}
LJ
i§'fr%Eii-3i:§ EC 25 Rajasiiiaiz (4: gems; 2;; J5;
%' '
%
15
5. Having heard the iéarngd adV§<:a*i€s appfiaring £231'
partiés and an pesrusai Cef impugnsd Order as 3139 r€VCV€§:"§i;s it
weuid emerge that workrnan was issuécl with a __$'h'0'éz_'
natice 0:1 2'?9}2g97 Calling upon hing» to s}3'Uw...::}c.ai:Se<--Aaiyilv
submit written explanation about his {mi-93c:é:r1d1i"c1E {E13
ground that on 04.12.1997 xvhilfihg vQa::-
shift he unauthorisedly left the W::)}f}:__p3_gCe .aimi1g other
werkmen W611: around thé Divisicxn and
Manufacturing Division af1d" ' w0.§f}%;1'nen who were
working in the cii'Vi's.idi3.~ 'i:he.«___gene-:?a'} sh_ift and second shift to
stop the fl3r:d...ft:§rce them to agsemble
outside "and en account :31' said
§I§«S§g3.1:§G§'E"£U(%%k3"I129.I1V:V$§%i3,.{ii{~:~""gCh€iI" work and unauihotrisédiy
,.:ésr:*:_:::"bE':;é7;9:i t§§.§;§::3.i§2e §::$'vfa<:§0ry gaiie bstwsefi 2635 pm is 4' 15
*g.::'<::,_ 1?3§§s:E §§*1g5xv"C_33:.§$ zzcséiics was §§"€€€fi6§ by 3 charge S2336:
:::s%;'i¥::€ £23: €'§é_.a.:;*;;§ry 3:: S2g§5.'§€} and ihéffiéfiéf 3. damesiis
~ 1:93:33 sofidueiefi is énqairs miss ariicéég sf Qhargfi
§$$13${Zv.§.§.a§n$§ £16 'iE§'GE°kEfi8;§":, ,;%€C5::"§i:":§j§32 fismssiéat ezsqzziry
' é%;r;as;,,_{?%:*;::é::$:ed and en Esfihalf of §"I3E1&§%.'i'§E'é€3f}'§Z§ 3 zxzitizgsszss
1%
were examined ami er: behalf of wQr}~:n:e:n, 15 wiineesee were
examined, Enquiry Officer after anaiyeing the
tendered by respective parties at paragraph ' .
his report has summed up era} and d.Qeu»:neI1%;'éify '
paragraph 12,09 and arrived at a e:c3nC1_ueiori'~_tF11:f€
workman along with two 0thers"h_éd.. instigated " V
Whe were working in general sh_.if:v.'ef_vL1\/Iachiziringj Centre
Division and Manufacturing";ii*;:i:is;;';>f1 3.0 V's='é:<_::pM 'work in eeneert
and forced them to a:s{semb1;eWei1teside'-file ffiC£dfy main gate on
04.12.97 between" and held they are
responsible ,fe~r~ efiap-eirike in the factory
thereby eaueixgg" "it: these Ewe divisiens and
held that 'ehau1'"ges" 1eVve}V.ie,<_:S'1"~~--e;gai:1st werkman ae prevede
hee ;eeeE:'~-«femraréed ie Wer1~:man§ fepiy was
=E§§':.§g°;§"§"éEZ"§=',3:'£""i%je§§'£?§_ 'efiefgy '::§>ns§ée3*i::g repiye erder ef ziéemiesai has
:i '-¥f:e;e:: paeeed, _ "
; +.5'»j;:f;:::7§*::e:f;E§z eefere iebeer Ceazra :ee:*E§:3an ffieé a
AA'-eeézéeefiéegg feérrzeee ef éiigiliéfyfi {:3 "€.?'§€i§€ ef same
ewe
ES?
§f€H;E'I}iE"iaI':;?" issus framed by Laban? Cgurt 3.3 :3 whether ihe
demestic anquiry héié agains': W'OI'K£f1'1E:U€i as fair, prQp€.3j";3i_i:1€i
vaiid came to be answered in the affirmative by La§b.Ci{if_'v'C(__§1}-Ijf' _
by order dated 31.07.2002, Thus, thgiimiteci'"qfii;:§siiéi1'-ihsii"ii
was required to 'Q6 examined by L;'21bO:[li'-."vCC*L1Ft"'§1?$iS:H"'X§ffi.iI
ragard to victimisation and prcipdrtionaiiiy of p11:91isiiiivi2.e:1f: and-. V L'
nothing more than 'that. ~.,1_fne(:(.).1"cii:<:>:V.71A7;.2'<:V)A1:'i1«::1 g0 to
ShOW that cause of strike' had taken
inta custody orig purpose of
investigation. prevailing at
the It is undisputsci that
there was entered iriia betwzaen
The Bhargi'V Sangha and managenzeni:
»§3€ Afiéri-€2u"reiating :3 GE..G8.§-4i is 3iiS3.9$ 35
§€f'%_é_i":'$ __S£i.i,§"<._S€ii£{:§vI§:.€E"i3: siausfi ifiifig S€i;§:i€ifi'i€E"iE was is as
'ééeriod sf Ehrsa years 311d? 8 mgnihg
~..._:';j{;»"gii1i'}?;§§'iCi§i;§:__§:'0E1fi SEEGSQ4 $3 :":%i,Q3.§8i fig agmeé fie 'i};?i'":§€E°
ands? sigijsé :5? Eigmaeeiiarg 53§§E§§:&
_,_a:gr$€=d :39: :52» siriége Eflifiifii es: g0 32%.? ézzriiig $36
18
eobeisteriee of eetflement and managemeei had aieo agreed
not to deelere Eeck out otherwise than as; 3 eoneeq11.e:i:#ee_V_of
strike. Parties were at ad idem on this issue 8.I1d.ih'€f?_§;'§:S"E.i§.' _
dispute or: this fact. Inspite of such M:;1Vr1 agree'mei_?i, en'Eered
into a snap strike took place on O4.1:42,E:??e...j:' Pe.t_itiof1ei' :'a1oié.gg
with two other workmen aeeorciiT:1'g?_to the xnanagenlent-V1had*..L'
instigated the strike. At this to be. :T{.1_HO1:"1'J(f§€C1 as to
whether resorting to behaviour
at the place of worv12;_:Wo111d:" :Vf1'1fisc:oI1du<:i: and
workmen who are liable to be
proceeded Horrble Supreme
Court in and others etc. etc. Vs
G.M,$u§areui Ltd, reported 1121 2:107 LLR
}:_.:i'E?8_ae 36$ Vii)? 'E-E.-.-J" 13 « indie Genera} Navigaiien and
Efiaiivez-;_§: :3Co:1?:-ggégooy and am" enei their 'i;%fQE'kl31€§1 has heifi
:,1née:i_:~'-V
"..,"S%::"§ke,V§i-3 §°€S§}€C§ ef e eefoiie uiéiéézy eerviee which is
--,e§ee.:§3r Eéiegal, eeulfi me": 3}: the same time be
" _e2':2e.::;eie§£zec§; "es pesrfeeiijg j2::e:::if§e§'1 These iwe
V e:::e:eE12e§e:1e eeuié not in law eewexiet. Tee Ease? has
2 eéeée a éiéeéineiioe between a etrfiie vehieh is fiiegei
/
1?
and ene which is not, but it has net made any
distinetion between an illegal strike which may_~~--be
said to be justifiable and one which is not justifiab_leo._V
This distinction is not warranted by the Act,
wholly nfiiseoneeived, specially in the
employees in a public utility service. E2x{ery*a..oiiee»
participating in an illegal strike is liable"'io-- dealt
with departmentally, of course subject to the"aetion
of the department being q1i'€:Sl;i:Cii'1€i(fll*.b€fC51'€l
industrial tribunal but it is not"-._ pern11'::eible 'tor V
characterize an illegal strilieas just.ifiablel;,_ Tl'1'€...Q1":l}'
question of practical importanee whie'h._n1a.§z agise in
the ease of an illegal strikeiixfonld be th.eAA1§i7nd or
quantum of punishment and t_hat._of'eourse has to be
modulated in accofdanee__ Ewiith' iihe facts and
circumstances of eachease. v"Tl:1er"efo're_',: .the tendency
to condone whatv._has"been declared be illegal by
statute, must d.e1:5reea'ted"and"it------n1ust be clearly
understoodb'<__tlriese"Who" take part in an illegal strike
that thereby they Inakei'~t_hen'1selVes liable to be dealt
with bjg"th.,eir. ern3ployers--. Tl1'eVr-e"' may be reasons for
distin;§guishing_--»the"«eaaebf those who may pave acted
as II1€3i'-'_€ duinb' ~§ii7iven'i'eeattle from those who have
taken an active. part 'iomenting the trouble and
instigating'-«.w0rl<1nei'i--, te" join such a strike or have
taleegn ':'e.eenrs'e is V violence?
""ié'is.t ii'ef.i! disputed by werkinan thai iheie was he
Vineinerandiinz. e§--_.setiieinent eniered; inte between barties as
«. ..'_j';-efei'$:ed is *si,i§ai*a. Seiiiieineni was in {ante and in vegiie fer ihe
l'=.f§eifie?._i'e.ei:a'iing 'fie @i.iIiS.£?§ii is ei.e3.ea and eeiieg eiis geese
siifilie in aiiestien has eeeiiiieei ie, an €Ii%ii2i§?. in ihe
% Vwdflr
ya»
2G
§OI3'1€Sii€3 enquiry Ehree Witnesses 133%: bfisn examined GI}
behaif ef management ::a_meIj.; S:*ij,zu;ihS Ram M0ha;.;é ._':'R§'.0,
Anni; Venkatesh and Sri.M.R,Natara_}' Whe have _
how the worktnan h€I'€iI1 and two otlfngy Workmezgii'_i1%iS£iga.t€;i
athers to indulge in a Snap strikef,
unequivocal terms on the :'.nstiga"fi_0:1_0f this wQrk:1i.aif1«-a,t1d1 two 2 L
others strike: was done. clearly
stated in his evidencue .:'§r1.<:g 11iry that this
workman and two vQii1<:_~1fs worlqnen
to strike Work :Q«%)rk1nen had been
taken away 'venkatesh has
alsca stated ":§1" as to the mode and
manner ir1'xvhi'v{9:LE3.Vs;'i:3*iVV]%;§_ 4Vi:Acs<_:§'1§: p}a.::e and crass examination sf
in €Xi€E§S{§ {flees :19: suggest fthai
said.£&5€§r:':Q::§g5'éS"%;§' '£33 éiscardeai 0:' éisbééievsé. infaei @348 sf
uziifigés ::a:§:'é_':3? Sr:.E'€atar3§ whg was €}£%E}71§E'E€{§ 53:': 33321331?
-...T';g:',§§«.:x:L<:::*1rm:9;1"§,%éi:"::§€§f aéméitad :13 2:35 SFQSS sgamixéaiiezg éhaé
V.é%:§2éi:f_A'€?:3;§: $33656 ihree zafarignsa naiaaéjg Cams grad aségéd
giriks Wfifk GEE {he saifi éajgg
//AN.
21
9. Be thaé as it may; W'G3CkI'i'131"1 hémseif in his CFGSS
examinaiion has admittsd that he Ciid not inqu4ir:5»~_4:Ta?§:h
personnel departmént as to Why four We-rkers .
police; He also admits that inspite Q£mu_ni0r1_.'ié'a§:éréf"a$'ki::§
them to go back to work he did not o'bey_ 'o1i; 1':«he:~.%
past experience showed that 'Ema-:1agerr:eni. _:f: rsjrlierv '
instancés had also informéd "ifi1 _AAa4A,.i:identic3.§
situation VVh€1"€ 801116 to izustody by
police for inve:stiga.';ir):1;*1V_;:_1nd::' as such he
has stated the same and as
such did informed by Union
ieadéra Qffhcf) and Muddappa
haw alga only after 4.15 RM. They
a;,:é* 2:139 ':3--§---the §j~'§"'€Sf3Zli Workman' Evifiatzzss of
{E1533 x%,?i::ieS'sé,&S ar:5'a:i:;:f::E be éisbeiievsd, Sifififi gaéiiéag is efieiésd
€336 s;fQS$~€K3:::i:éa€:§ofi is §§SCE'€fiZi1: {heir Sifiififiififiia Laban:
~ . .%f_:a;3:::*~f hag éngiigfgeé 3335. ;%$§""i§?.i?SfiS€§ the €:"i??i{§6§'i€€ avaiiabis $1:
, "-§'€'{'§3 E'fi: '~ has <:Q:::& is :3 Qeyméésgsim: {hat ti? §re$€:1'§
afsang wifig ism} aséhers ifisiigatsd {he W'G§}<;iE:"'S in
w"/V
22
}*i€SG1'i tie eziap sérike and ii: Wee net 3 eperzianeeue strike and
it hae aiee heifi that it resulieé in obetruetien sf xxforkeféefifem
discharging their dutiese Said finding is based;t3:'1'..'p:ef:ef'~.
appreciation ef evidence which does not su~ffer""~fro3i1 .any
perversity and as such it does not callfor inteffererieei
View of the same I dc» not finderiyj errer' 'e0m1:fjitfe:1_VVbyl the
Labour Court in helding Kthat the
workmen as proved, has conceded
before Labour C0uvrt_:'"wjth enquiry, and
only issue that eefore Labour Court
was; whether» ififgas ViCUII1IiS8.UOI1 by the
managemer:it_A "' __'p5'.1nishment imposed by
Managemem \fi4e::%VsheeEf:ef:'giy'«'ieiispreperiionatee In Vi€W' of the
s;5:;1.eA E 53:15eféyv---.i--1<:§i:"§nif:y in the esxafaré §aseed1 by ihe
Ea§%':}i§EEE.iV"':'.%#f:f;{_)Vé/E.':§.%'%?{.' :,E';{::€ai§§:*;.g that charge Eevefieé agamei the
L"*'-..r45;e:°§<n':;e*.;:: Vae §»:47ex%e€i.
323%»; eumézzg my eiieatéezi '£6 iéee §$S1:é€: ef
'*V;g§§;s;e..e:?%,:es::aii':y if §U::'Ei$h§':E€§:'§ émgeeeég ihe juzéeéieiien ef
V' WWW
e
23
this Cfiufi in 'zihig regard is rather Eimifed. The §§'£>E?fifi" :0
iniérferé with digciplinary matters is cireumscribsfi
prevision itself namely sectien 1 IA and Labour _
substitute its views to that of disciplygary
order of disciplinary authority is othemfiscxx:;e1AI*»:éaSCtii§ii~--..ai':::l
does not smack of arbitrariness. "TLa.bour Court <:é:;f11f;:3t..¢§:<'tend -. L'
sympathies er express se;}:1time1A1_t4§' ~'§_»r1:i1V«f; power
under séction 11A of IndL%St;i§1 If the Labour
Court were to fine? has been
followed by the courts
sheuld not order of disciplinary
authority. of "the judgment af Honfbie
Suprfime {'?ou1:3;L"-«:13 and MB, 25.8,? and
§_§;§:§_1é_s V"§:*i;?:°abhakara Bari Babs; §'€§}QE'€$fi £3;
2Ci.{V';?8 _»_ '§3.e: :'.a;gra§h3 E8 and 3:8 53:: be iceked tags
V . ESE" i'£a:: §i";Si&§"ii Cass irzgpiizs :35 Téifiié" béifig :3:
, ..§:Eié§3:2é€V:3f: §:§§$:*€{i irzés beiweeg figs Vgniea $3.? Efiarmeekaga
"- 'V.g$.a:*:i;:;%i:3§ azési $35 izaagzagemeni: Lia: 'Js?{%E'§i1'?:1€§"1 zmuéd :15}: $6861'?
¢%*'/V
24
is any snap atrike, {he}; have resorted fie snap strike whieh is
at the inetanee ef present Werkman and {We ether we:*§g§3:.ea
ae such it eannet be construed that punishments _
dieeiplinary authority is disproportiegate
misconduct; On the one hand work11'14an;"in-T' qfi»SStié'17, C1§:{iIfIsg'E
that on account of his trade un'ir)1*1-~.Vacti\,%itiea.vi:>i.,, eailineg for 2 L'
strike he has been Vietimfieed "va§1o'eher:e.I§3readth he
contends that he is not strike and
fault cannot be iaia his gleef of pleas put
forward by xvorlqiean to suit his
convenience; " A emaa-aéspreeiatien ef evidence
found that fair and proper and Charge
against exceeded in its jurisdietien fie
reflzi-Ce p:é:3§.szi*1:::;e':::'*------a:":d was no: justified in ixzierfering
wi"{E:f* :eee',s?a::§eV1s;%§e,e "%;$;?e:*1§::ia/1:: get em}? breached aieeipiiee at
i3§; :eaTVer:£::g 'ae a enap aria fiiegali eeeike azed
"-«T.ee:2_%ieaey *:e"::f%:e::1era::§u:':2 ef eefiiezeezet eat afzee meiigaéeé
"--ei:%':e:* :x:e.:eé§:een ie fiiiikfia Hazfieg heié éhat eieargee are erezrefi
ia'7ee::;re§ Cetéréi eeaié eei; have eeeéifieé the eeder 05
;>% N//»"""'
25
diseipiinary authzsrity by eating in '{he arm ehair ef the
management, Labour Cezmi has proceeded i;:e
erder of dismissal 110 the ene imposed by it 01:1 _
at the spur of the memen: strike twee'
instigation sf petitioner and two other \.>%.f'cse:t1»--:1'r1i31_r1=.eLi':d° i:~.__x'v=.;+e
enly for a short span i.e., for a ;3_erig)d <')ft'v.t{7<J::1
juncture it is to be seen that Lab0_ޤ?._Court hiafhiele ejealuating
the evidence of this xxrer1:1fiaV:1Aih~f0e2:_:r}€.i:iv eriien leaders had
informed the xvor}q:1 fan_ of work. and
inspite of leaders' the place of work
he did fact is admitted by
werkman h£i:i1&s'e:f has been exiracted by
Labeur Cegrt ef the impugned awaré. In
éiiai, éziexégizf ur::at;£er'e;ise it eazmei be heié ihet ihe erder of
1}u:§§e_e§*:;3§:eei§"§::é}§eee:i. by fiiseiplinary aeiheriigz wee eheekéegigg
L""~":§fep:'e§e:tie::;:3"fiej_.fe:f* ihe pyevefi miseendueé, In éhai; zriew ef
" «--i'?%;§:eV':,ee.:ie:"; ef She eeaeizieeed View $13.: iebeer Ceeeré
eeriizéiiééeé ea. eeeéeeee errer in meeiifyieg 'zine ereiez' ef
'T §§i,:::si:§Eézz1e:r1E impeeefl *5}; {§SC§§1§E1§I':J autheefifg E332' direeiéeg
26
reigeiaiemeni €}f1V€}I'k}'1'18JE and awaré ef 33% back wagee with
denial of three increments with eumuiative effect. Vf}7"«::_ '€i%_:ie
extent award of the Labeur Court modifying the _
imposed by management cannot be susfiained .€iI1Li--i:'[vvi~$I"1i1Ef€EE3y " =
set aside!
RE: W.P.5450/2005 ALON_G unTH% W:.P'.V1:2429,z2pQ;=5
1 L Respondent~wo1*kf:#1:§fi1A._flee: charge sheet
Cum netiee Qf eneqz:11ii93,'§;:j.ex:$:f: alleging that on 29.04.97; eempany bus bearing No.CA«1w20&{ 1" employees for general shift which ";'Z§%i;{'i';,B.Uitappa, Senior Subedar and at ?:§*1ev"b::;e eame near Lalbagh rear gate? %:.::;':E"; Sri/.Naga:'aj Rae, Srijeeeph E1"? arzfi ?§§°§,GéE."T_1g;:5'1_}.f3§'é§3«§l*}'i'}C§3§'§§} emauiherieeéiy eéieppeé She has 2:: éiéae vV'v:--Tj;3':§:3d1e arid fieflefiefi me has tyres; Ree;3e::c£ei":':~
4. .:%;<:_:?¥i§;:j::%5.31..;3Je;e¥' §S$%.§,€§: iiiéih eharge eheei Cue: zieeiee ef ezgquiry aifiegieg egg: era e4.12.e:? he Eeft {he piece ef 3% %'"""
27
wagrk wiéihetmt Gbiaiiling §€1"f1"1iSSi§1i}. and insiigaiad the werkman werking in Machining Centre Divisi§;::V'V'».:4:"::;¢§:C1 Manufacturing Divisian to step the werk: in _ forced them to assemble Qutside: the fa§:f;g):fy maifi two charges levellsd against \v0rk1nan"~:car:1s.':o 1b€"d_<é§nié{T--.af:1<i:
damestic enquiry was ordered' beA'~<:Q11.d1i§::te':1"against r L workman and accordingly giomesAti<;:A'e:nq1;jry..Wa$._AAcQ§1ducted. In so far as the first aiieflating tyres is concerned, a joint .ve:1;t11.1iry::'i§§?éL:SVvfiforlqnan along with Ganganna .a:i§i VVs:fim'far as the second charge is alang with Chandra.
and this joint enquiries? reports same to ':32; that charges Eévelied against '22ifQAI'~}a:TI'»a1v:é:{.j "'ii'h%ereafI:e:; Secend shew £38.38 was :s$z:'ié%d"L€:::4{:'§:3§s"i:;.g-ée§§i sf SEEQLIEF}? regsrt agé an racsipéi §f ragiy [,.,,1%r W€3?k,:.fi an auihsrity dié mat ascepi $16 S8f{I}$ G§'§§'§_E';' aiatfié Q8.§:£.§§9% irrzgesed pufiishmafii <3? "-€i§é5:*::§:+;sa?; _f§f§:I: iézeir S€}"i§§.€€. ,g%ggr:iss:§;$é 33y E316 same zaagrkmagz ifiiS§Uf€E' befefs fififiiiienaé iaéeur Caamrzissiaizerg %"fl W»;
28 Bangalere in 13,53! 2301 before Labour Court and enquiry eendueted was held id be fair and preper by erde§'n'.,d'a:ed 1012,2003 and thereafter parties have tendei*ed..'_'Vyfille-i_;r"' _ evidence with regard £0 vi<:tiInisatlonV me findings as noted by award of Laboulé ecgurxii' On appreciation of evidence tendered "by p8;r:ie$3'§'«-v..Le.b0ur-.."
Court allowed the dispute fin eel; aeldlelvlhefiorder of dismissal and directed into service with denial of bacl: by denial of 'iihree increments _ with cumulative effect. It questioned by both managemenlieanéd Ewe writ petitions. it is the eenienilonlxef learned Counsel appearing f::;f:*"gaetitidiaegtenzainagerneni, that Labeur Cieuié eernznltfted 3. eerlejee Ve_:'*'_';e:'s:zV"'v4:i,_;§i: ».:f::*:f§:2"§ng at e eenelnsien that place ef incident defiaiéng §:};:*e:ls:--.V.§:l;szd eee"a:::*edn at: a glaee euteide {he iaeéery .._.'.§:;"l__:;::§eeee e;;::;___%:e£:?§2 €§3;§3S€ 25%} ef eianding erdege wee nee', "-Va§'é:fe2:::ed end een{e::,,ds élzei ii is e erreneeae finding. in ewe"
2;?
support sf this §z:>p:::>si§:@:: E16 has I'€}§€d apex the feiieswirzg judgments:
1. Volume 36 EUR Z74
2. 2009 LLR 173
3. 1975 {1} LLJ 391
12. He would age Labour Court committed a serio1;.s §:;ror quantum of punishment auglfiority particularly when CiGI11€3§sf;i{':' and proper and it should not i':a\?e'_ quantum of punishment imposed. by _v&is.gi";::1iV.1'1;=1V3;}r%._3;:;;.fi::§'i;it}7, };':V3,"'T.'§'<;:%::j.@::G:;:_é::ja Sri.§{*S.S2§a:"a::1a::f;a§ Eeayzaad 63:33:36} "~3;§p§33*i§:_g {$23. :A_€:s:*}<::::a:: rsiieraéés Ehe CG§iif<i'IE¥i§Qfi.E~ raiseé "-«--7i?,;§:«:§__§§€ La;béV:.;;51'C9{:r'i is 33 £3: ag "€J$i'"§{ffia§'E is Qfiiiiffifféfié as in $16 €a:*§:Iie:"' wit patiéierz E'i$§T}E§}f 2?if.R?§3E /269$ ;:§3.f:g:§ .hé:§ Wesfld fiefead the aaafiaré §f L&b£32iI' 681,32"? :2': 3% €33 as % \'§,»':x\,' 33 fifiéing given by Labour Csuri; hsiding that the incident of deflating' tyrés had takan piace Gutgide the prernisss of.
and as such it does not attract clause 263(5):? sf _ standing 0I'd€I'S since Campany premiggs r€f€1'r:':d.fE0"'in'said clause and as defined under stand.4ing"ofrd€r_ '«3[?'] '' éV<i;1ii1¢i' include only the vacant spaces'TV_i®gate--«':1'v. premises; factory buildings?' ajid not a incident taking place <>utsVic'fI«::A'_t1*1ei'-- As such he supports the qxyard 'Jthe extent of management of bus tyres has taken p1V.:u:ev i:iside"€:h~e {story praniises. 14, Eiaikinég,héafd' 9:i:§§"Es§;$Vé.'ff16d A:1v0<:a'E€S appearing fer ibis: pariiesg 33$ an "p.$ri:saE sf award pagsed by Labgur Caurt :ZifiV.§§:':.<:;fie:s=::§i §:E_1::3:V iihs Ariicieg sf chargs §SSil€§ agaéagi:
w@r}§:i::a.f:.__§sa§s%:;§:1_§i3:*":w::': heaaiirzga naizzeiy:
Bafisiiéig §§.tir.;é iyfes 9513225: Ejéaring $305 {3AE~2S@E: 4: eihar '<sJ§z*§:::1$:: ti: mézzige 11:: s:::a;§ styéks» ¢¢'V'/ 31
15. '*-Nhiifi aVd;'udi€:a':ing the Writ psiiiiems Noe ?Q3£,§{}5 and N0,4&4838/G5 hersin supra, 1 have alrezady givén with regard £0 {he snap strike conducted by _ was at the mstigatien of three wQ:f};1nen."1:'1cii:;vding"_t;r:_é"' Werkman in the present Writ petitionl--_ AS su<:iie_ said given by me in the above referrédkyfrit petiti:>ns'..Vin{_'s0...far as r L' snap~str1'ke is concarned Vmguld a1s0V:hQ1C£.._Vgoo<i't0._A:hAé§ present writ petitions
16. New issue regarding deflating of is concerned, it is noticed {hag the workmen was on 29.94199? bug ma Riff 1:h€ aampany §§f§r::is€s;»<:j§§" g~i<:k V23isA. 53:' their gezzfirai ghift amt? it @933 ::f3SCiGjE'£$§vA.}3}§%'-..S€§}i0Y Szzéadaig S:'§.C.RU1:'T£appa 3211:? at 3fbé:.::;.§ ~?;'§§ 38313 has same 3233:' iaébagh inf:-ar §at€ V'7T_p-:?€--s e:f:2f: s§?G駧:§iéfi afieng vafl: Sri.{3,_S§Naga:'aja Rae, .1 =;%§"§.'TE§.§:5A§,{§'8:IEg&1§§i3;¢ sad ;Sri.«}Qg€ph fQE'5Ci§i§? 331$ "4"_j3;:f:$a§'g.s:§%§;zad§§; siegpeé fine $3125 in $336: middie Qf mad ané $ M $5 #33 3 gm 2a,:;a $2' thef .e*:*--$' @f the Lagbiéur gag}: .
"%x 33 1? in order is examine {ha rival csnientisnsg it wauld be apprapriaie is extract the re:-Eevant Clauses Sf {he g-:§1t::ii°:§d standing orders nameiy Clause 3(7)? 26(5) and reads as under:
Clause 3(7):
"Premises means tbTe"'---._factdry .bu§1di§t_1gs,. Administrative: OffiC€S as W611 "as VaC.2:xnf;T --spa'cfes located within the factpry premi_;se_s;".._V Clause 26(5):
"Drunk£§VnIi§:$s hr '1'i0tCus'- erv disorderly behaviour , 'd1;;1rii1g«';V-_V im1*1.§ira_g haurs within the company's ..prié=:r:;1iseS' Qf~v.'L_':1.Iiy'° act' subversive to discipling-;,3"' ' '"3;/, "
Clause 26(8); AV ' ;'*'Wii1fu.E:"'dg::::;'agé is £31" lass ef cempaaygs " ' Q: vAp;'QA§€f£j'}?."" ----- ~ "
$19 Eaqzziyy Rfigmi wauifi g@ is shew;
T:g::E:ag 932 "%)$Ei:a1f Qf managsmegé, 'ihyee 'E?~'f§'£E'1E'SS¥§-S Efiffiffi .1 r.§{a:§:§;JZ:1%:E--.§:;:i' Subedar WEQQ had 3,(2CQ:'3'ip8£'2§€§ '£16 véhégée :3:
V "-4"_s3;a2_&;§*€§e':: wag sxarzgirzaé as MWL Be has Siaieé ass is $169: iiésé asiw 34 werkman; stopped the Vehieie fereibly anfi deflated the bug tyres resulting in generei shift employees nei being able bmught to factor); on time. Since it was a j0i§f:ifi"'ef1v:}.1;'i:."-jg?' _ eendueted against the present xverkman and"'S:f:;vNEaga:aja Raog Sri, Gallganna, S1'i.J0seph<, eniy t_w:> Wi»t:1eSSeé :"\:§e':fe' examined on behalf of workxnarijxamelyg Sri.N:1ge;:aj.a, Rags 2 L' Sri.K.A.Gar1ganna, and there is abseluteeegieniai"Q,f_AiI;e§ident in question Eye witness to "the--. i11.ei{d.é.:n.ii'fiseffienier Subedar, Sr1'..Uttappa. It is .'_[_'('3C()i'I"d" 1ih:f*;-:1'; question was brought back tq to 4.30 pm. and evidenCe----veorroborated by MW? Mr.RajannaV "a:1d4'_ A perusal ef award of Labeur Cemf: with evidence tendered by the pi-_?f'§4i--€S shew ihai; Labeur Cent': has met disbelieveéie. '<:::sj'€?i::.<;?a'1:§fc,§,ed She evifiezzee ef these wiineseee eee%:;::f:e*e};::ee ef iiize ieeifieei er: 293%, E99?' namely', ef"é:§:e3 ef She Ewe E533, C§;%~2G§;}; 13%? iii has beezz ii flee Tbeegf; heéd £313.: Ciauee 25%} is ézzagpéieebée ;f::_f:5{ aiféraeéeé, Sénee the ieeééerri hag net eeeagrred mside '.~,»>d>"' 5%/"
;a%?
35 the f8.CtQI':§7 premises. Peruse} ef the said Claueee which are extracted hereinabeve and when read cenjoirlilyg weu3._dg_e~.f§:e ghgw that gmjrd "premises"' referred £33 in Clause . Clauee 3(7) cannot be read in a restric:e_d m_e.i:i:ie:r?j ed-.213. tev exclude an incident which takes place the premises relating to the prepefi'y~._ of The * fellowing ilhjstratiens WoL1I(1_he ofVArei§j,ra:1ce ahd -xxzeuhi throw fight as to how and in I "premisegu requiree to be unde§s,_teo_c_L H V . u ' Illustration N 1'
19. ai an establishment between werinhen AAe_1;:"~~-""e:np1e§ree inside :he faetery §§_'f3fE'fi,§€S eeehf' eareii after WOf}§I1g hearse reeuiiihg in phyeieafi e.se:i1é,§t»§jjj;:_Ve:;e ef ihe empiejgee en his eewempieyee L"ee€e§de ihe ;ere:::ie.ee ef ihe {eater}; and ii eaheet he eaié éheii ee:"2zg§éieh has eeeurred eesaieide the §§"'€Z":1§$€S ie be
7.."e.e1':1-eéragecig euézfieeeive ie the ciieeigaiirze ef the feeieey. if ee %;ei§:;;e:e"§:efi, ii ziseuéé ieaé fie falieey, £2 ecé: which is he': 36
fiirscf: resali sf an ac: arising 91:: of employznant Si' in fhé marge ef employmerzi, cannot be t€rr1:1e:d or €;::3:':si:'ue<:i. ézs '3_ci:
subversive to the discipline.
Illustration No.2:
20. On account of acrimony 'E3§tx>veé'1-1 an €i11p1§;_y*9€ -and r L' the managsmant if worlqnefi .wereVVi:';:du1ge 'défitrgfiring the property 0f the managemenvta'§;tQ§tsid:f:V§':t§.;<$ while being carried or transpoftegj §:'c>nstrued that such incident h;'::s::«'1;:h§:"'};1'emises so as to absolve suchV.3,C:s'VA:wffrii$ii:.; 'subxi*%rsive discipline 9f the employee s0 "as'i';'Q the purview 9f the said eiauss. V V --
2}, fit é:%};is.. '§:§:§::§u:'€ E': wguéd bs rséevazgt is {gets {he iiif-2;:»€§gIE1€;;:;:'_ Sf §9§Q::'b1e Supreme Qgzzri in the case GE ~.TE§>§§:.:.:;C%1a::d3;i;.§V__A'3~ Eisciyécal 335$ Eadie Emdzisiryiss itfi. vs. f:s§e§£€s§ 3:: 19?? {1} Ligj 393, §£i§'3;€§{i"i,EE'E§€i" :1; E235 Ezsléci gs f<31Z{:sw§:
%a/W 3?
"It was met dispuied befere us that ihe aiiegatien ef assault? if preved, wouid be an Subversive sf discipline; What was Centendefiidezijii-L:.j: -1- V behalf of the respondent was "that assault having taken place in Thana and Mulund WhichK,v'a,§: obvioualy the premises or preeipcts was not covered byv 1), The Labour Court" foafid assault did not Standing Order i1e'}dv§";»x?as restricted 1:0 acts " the premises of the eetabiishrrieljlt ir:._cn;~:.r egiiniorg, on a plain reading .._ef {3.§3.%3._S€, ifievewerde "withizz ihe premises er L_§§*eei:3:e'€veA'de?f'fiie es€;a'eiiehme::€" refer eat is {he piaee Whefe:-fiie ae: which is subversive but where "-fiége eegiieequenee ef ease}: a:: as? maeifesea ééeeif. "'?§:;e:§i;er zarezéee as": aez; 'i%,?h€§"€1?€:' eeseemiéiteei, if 3?: .. _Ef;ae the effect a? eezbeerzéeng déeeipéine er gaed W;
an 38 bshaviour Withir: ihe premiseg 91* precincis (if the"
estabiishmenii will amount :0 misconduei Standing Order 24(1). We are unable {<3 i" V Standing Order 24(1) ieaveg out ;:j:f.it:_s' committed Gut said though SL1bV€I'SiOI1 of discipline thé Eremises or Precincts offiiiikév-estgibliéhmentfiin questien. Such a c<§i1'si;r1.i':::i'::>i?1 inf ::yu'r.VView be quite 1J.1'1I'€'.':1S()1'1f»1i)1€."
22. in Bharat Electronics Limited Vs, reportsd in £969 {SE5} KER W; had ai*i""..:3§:ca¥s'i_o§*;-._siiéikiriterprcir: the word "8113! aci:
S%,_7i:"b:'%?€:§"Si§.'%.i"a3}S_...;fii3{;:i,pififiéMwiiih referenca :3 the eeciirrezzce $5 §E'3CiCi:'-*f§_§1{ T:::_ 'vfE§:5f.ji{§'1é§_T"'§:fi€IE}iS'3§ or Caiifirtisdg is the §3;£fGi'§»' 'g3r€mise$? gr éihsfizéiiss arid iifiié as fgéiawsiz ~ €X§é§:§§f2;€é by $315 SE2}3i'€i'i'1i3 CSQFE in faia, SEE jv.'f§:'iii§sj'A.'fg?si fhsif Wayigzzen, U363} 26 F.J.Ri i§§§ ¥_'15.*iS»€Gfid:§€§ saxisicis the faciery gmmises in arésr V ; , 5 \'.<%:._ 3?
'ae eniafi the impesitief: ef a punishment under a etanding erder such as these 0:: whieh management depended in that case, -1- V some 'rational connection with the aesailant and the Vietrim" 76' and the act is an act: sub{:e;2§ViveV--' would Clear that the within the meaning i§f:1:Z3{.3x)(h} even if the assa1f111:::'t_Q0k:_"V:i1aee factory premisesf, A reaciing vwould go to Show that wards "Withih be imterpreied hteraily aed it flees' 30:4 :9 piece Where act subversive ef E»i?"h€F€ éhe eeeseqezenees of eueh act :i;.e:*:§ffee'*§e«'V"_*%1j1e.;f:;eeives. 'E'he weeds 'gee: eehvereéve ef 71'_§ieei§h:2i:e""' game: he €GI}f§i}€§ ie faeiezgg er eeiebééehmem 4: .;:}re§::§e"ee--.e1eee age? if there ie 21 eaéiemeé Sexes exéeieci 3:0 {he A'-4Vi::e§é§e§:;€ eeé ieéieeigiimee each aeis eazmei: he eefiéened Q:
£1 Cenrt is srmneens, cnntrary :9 the nsrtifieci Standing §I'd€I°:3 and Eiabié in be 323%: asidn and it is accordingly set asidn.
23. In View of the findings given by iSASL1Vé given regarding proportionality of théj th4é"V:§3;1§G*25§f,AA referred WP. No.7031/'2{)O.:§ =..c£:mne:%f:é:: Mb .1': v w:p.No.44838/2004. I am__ of th¢ndnL:éj¢nsi.qe1«éd«n%§z:;§gvV %é:ha: the said finding is equally app1ié;;b1.e Es} a_:.nV hand. RE: W.P. /05:
24. The, case has expired during theVV:"'.§€nden:C§:'V"" petition and his iegal repres€nta§iveé§ x2{%ire b6 branght an record and big 'E33:-nnghi en rscord gs ssen from fine enCin3i's€::é:€:ni--»._%1:éa§€'=.in S13 Canss {inn 9? bsih the xarrii 'V'AA...p€tit§{:nSf neiiizsd 1:113": Miseniianénus Appiingtinn
-. .TAj'.jE?§n_._}{}G25f :?.7'.§j§;~8 and Misneiiannnsis Apnlinaiénn "x.'t"-Vi'é'@,.?;2;'"?'?vg,5:é:f;@EE which was $335 in '2%f}?.§€aE5%5i,f2€}S§ ané rnggectiveiy is bring Egg: heirg 9:"
%/Mn 42 deceaseé w0rk:::a:1 an rscerd $9136 :0 be aiigwed by éhis Sour": by erfier datsfi 24.082011 Havgevsr, iearned fer workmen has only brought the wife of . workrnan 011 record without bringing tl.)j§Vs9::s "' workxnan. on recerd. Hence, S8J1'1€ is réa:or=.fi1"c::d'aéc'ordingi:f;~..'
25. Articles of charge game 1;Q..}:):é...iS&3~.1}T€d.;EO'3:h€fi§€C('38.S€d T.T'.J9seph by chargesheeaf' enquiry dated 29.97.1997 and chvargesheegfV§ia'9§3c1 :'1.:2-.Q9V;1§9'7 alleging that in the first inci9'de'fg!:V along with other workrnerz, naxgzéiigr 'C..§§..Naga§aj4a Rae, Ganganna and Nagappa x2v§}-1j1<i:.'1a::: and unauthorizedly stoppéd the b:,;:'S"..iv§r::V<:Vi:_ 9;-'.9$'~~--"§:sCQrt€d by S:*LC.B, Uttappa Szifiriigs: at ar9{:::£%'?xi§ 35:1, at Lajbagh rear gate and £ie§EV[9;f_»¢zi rsgzfiiizzg in "me general SE39: amggyaes %e;Zi:g§44 :E3i:i*.;§C;:--.V.?;>fi€ 'isrgaighi is §&{::Qr'y far iheir duties 333$ "-T«§iT:jV::3:j€3'b§:' €e::é§:i%fui§,:2g miscafiéusi if} $91299 28{5}§ 2&8: :95 E339 "s:&§€i§é::c?--.${;a::§i§:g' arders. 3 W919 959% ailsgsfi En {E6 sscafié, Quiz: :19i:E<:$ sf erzguizfy thai {here has 'seen gvfiifufi 5%"""'"'W 'E 43 iztsuberdinatiet: by the Werkxnen it} met eomeiying with the Ciireetiens issued and throwing Waste paper, Cotton Wa%$tte"a;:':d scrap emery papers on the fleet on the S€CU:OIf!§Fv¥'.«;'i?1{§§1vf$_ 'flZ"§'_ deeeased was working though the ej1.;pervi:e'*<31* ~-- .:$vpeeifiea},.1:jI " "
instructed not tie dc: so and therebjttiécotlntrtitted"rtiise'efxdii1%.:_:
under Clause 26(1), 26(2), 26(Ei'}V_ a:qd 256-fig). _ef.:v't}:ev~eertifiea:i--tiL' standing orders. In the Vttiat was eendueted against the charges was held to have been" ;';1t0V'ed the reply to the second by order dated deceased worlnnatng Aggrieygd bttywtixe xfjiemissal werkman raised a dispute beft3reuxt?:3.eV'Lett}vet§;:f Cet:rt in E.i)gNe.40/2091 by filing xS'€'C';i{}:H 1364A} ef the tnduetriai Bisputes _'_e:'1V<:T§ ef the pteadings ef the parties? x "~=§?}§SQi§§;'i::8tI'jg' Afjttsetityf ftemed iseuee for its efijeéieetiett aeé "-«t..§:e§ e'L~».tt2et §"L"*s:;§_teeette Etzqtsirjg' eeedeeted by the meeegeteeet eeé ttetiti by etdet' éeteé 2E.1t.2§{":3§ G2; the getiterettfg' ef the fiedtege ef the E1'}.qt3i§I'}k' Qffteet age fl My/fix, ,, 9 .
44
alleged Viciimizatien th€ Labeur C<::vz:;:'t heid that act Sf deflating sf the hires did not accur inside the pr€:nisesV_:c;fi§he factory and as such Clause 26(5) of the arder was not attracted: This find.i;11g__is i3:i'€é:3':ié§3h1'V""fci_' .11':-e_; K "
finding given by the Labour Court was subject matter of c0nside_ r"ati0n A"-by rhis in'-V w,P.No.545o/2005 and wfp. No%;%:i[j242%9./2do5hhwhéreunder this Court has held standing order would be app1icabil.ve4.3§o.._%9,aid finding is squarely and said finding given by this «g(jQ<:i'--.t0 thewpiflesent writ petitions.
26. in S0 far as gfhé Aazjha-:"*ige* Sf wfllful insuberdinatioh is c§3h:3ré::na§V:};;:nc.1y' h§'i"a;e:ih€:ing E3 the dirsctisns issued by ihe $:;p<::*é?:sé:._A§;:aé:2.fi*::*Qwi::g of wagte paper, miéian wasée 333$ L"r.:»§€hrap €§".{T:_€1"j§ p3§s;3:*s an €313 300:' is csnsssrnéefi {he Labmzr
-«..§;3;:::h"£;. has 'é:§;_;é§"::§;1€d Q18 finding rgsazfisé; by éhs Ehquéry 2&5} ihai ihs Said ::h33'g€ is gmxzad air: evahzaéing 3;h€V.. _.;€§=§;é6:3c€ sf 'aha mafiagemeni wiizssss Sri,Ba.1ajé %n/W M 45 ifishwaxlath ané Sr:1.KIV.Ramakrieh1:ar1 ané it has arrived at a conclusion "éhat: ':0 the extent ef Eiiterimg of xxx?astevV(:';e:"'»:he H001' is concerned is duly proved.
appreciating evidence it has come ':0 a e0ne1uei--en':"i.hai: there' was no positive and cogent materia1;.-~Apfod1.iCe<i- thee management that it haze beer:-"V 'thr0vm._ by i;;ijV1'e'=.x,2ic_f3VI'1':7;11e3t1 intentionally which finding was deg V :)0mesti<:
Enquiry and came is be e To arrive at a conclusion it has Vt42_.:ke__:r1 :'»fl;1e evidence of Sri.Balaji ':.:_v._A_i_S.tiv.I(!'\§C'I§e@e;ehandran and Sri.A.S.Prab,huV.x2s%1f1~e.'E¥e;§5e the course of the emp10ymene"~.é;he" éihrewn but they have not aetuafly seer: 'e$ir1*ying eat ihie act, It is aiee eiiéfieé §:reee«exa.ir1i::zei§en that sweeper whe haé been eng'eM_ge:§'e:2e:"iiv:e% aéiefe'-reinoviag the §i?8;StE emery, eteekizzg ii: in Wihfi dee'i.__'e§I: e::5:{;ilV§ieV'*;e see: ihe aazerkiiiefi Wile were C3§'§'§?'§flg eu: .A.V'V._:t%';3i,;'€!'VSV'.E jebe %:§_ 'éhe ghee f§0GE". This fénfiieg eaeeet be heéd es "---.j_ee-@"e:'{'s:e_ _e'i:':ee 11*: ie beeeé 0:: maieyiei €"€"§§€1E€.3€ piaeeeé ea by pariiee, E1: Se fee" as Wi§fL:§ ieeuberfiineeieéz E33? ,zw % HOXV¢'§?éI', ~ xxfié. file '~ .
WM'/V ;%i.e~:%g;;:;.%y~ 1:: aim eefieeeexgeeé am :a7a1e:x:s.?eeg/2:395 V W 5%"
46
disobedience is the reasenable order ef euperiere is eeneemed and causing damage 0:' ieduiging in disorderly behaviour is concerned the Labour Ceurt inspite of instructions from the_"super;?iSGr-.e'_"Sfi Be.1aji ' Vishwanath the same has not been fvc}-.110v'g*'es:'£«iV and as such if: has recorded a ta'-
have been proved before DQ_mestieV_E{fiq.u1'ry is .f1'etv.pe11e*erse. In so far as holding that the indulge in any acts subversive of .vdieecjp1ir}'eV"'('31auee 26(5) of the certified this Court has already f€tCOI'£1f3€i, 2549 / 2095 connected with W.P.N haets ViZ., act of deflating ef bus tyres is ef discipline and eaiei finding %1:_ei'd.f}_%q.;;§e:11§jf_fge.eAg:I *---fa': as the present writ eetifiene are eemeerrzeeg _ éffégfi éfhev isgsue of yregeeriéezieéiiy ef gugziehmesrzi is '=s:'§>,I'}Q€i'1"}i1'fiV £1';§.e€Ig.ei::*é has already yeeerded 3: f§.n§jng 'aha:
-..:;g:?3e'::¢: ifezisihee C8IE'}:I}"§if,3:€§ a eerieue errer ii': ézzierfeféng "-x:aeéE;§f:{"i:A:1ee_§--:1e;:;::,:::: e5 eeaéeimeeé émpesed E3}; BiS€§§3i§.'E8.i"§§
-Q'?
am} said finfiing' is 8330 squalfly' apgiicabie :0 thé facfe cur:
hand, In View of thé discussion made herei11ab0vé '*:.h<~3.fbIio:x%11ig 9 order is pasxsed:
iii V% T -évg WP. Nos.é14838/2004, 545C;;i2OQ5 and :'54:5 11912005 are hereby allowed and '.fVh::3V__vI;éi;bQur Cioiirt passed. in I.D.52/200 40/::L5.3A}"%§};C3,_1 'i'espectiVe1y by modifying H imposed by diSCipIi1'1a%§{ rainstatement of work12f 1e11! is.' hereby gret aaide. Order '§:sf _ 1.:;é:<: Authority dismissing the F€S§~QB§€HiS :"rt3~2f?e"iV__Ssf:1:*%?i*::e is hereby regtazed.
-N§~sg?£§'3._if/2GG5% 3733952095 ané ;2429;'2§@5 'f§§.<éé§E%}:{§V are hereby disrzzissafi. 12%;: :3:':%;é:_ as {:3 $5333, 555% §§§§§ % V 'sé3;:$,iEtiR