Madras High Court
Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 9 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)ILLJ411MAD, (1999)IIMLJ257
ORDER T. Meenakumari, J.
1. W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated November 3, 1989 made by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 122 of 1986.
2. W.P. No. 18151 of 1991 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated November 3, 1989 made in I.D. No. 122 of 1986 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore-first respondent herein and quash the same in so far as it denies the petitioner the back wages for the period namely from the date of dismissal on April 27, 1985 to the date of award November 3, 1989 and direct the second respondent to pay the backwages for the abovesaid period.
3. As the facts in both the writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner -management in W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 has argued that during February, 1983 the second respondent-workman was posted in the night shift and was allotted some vehicles for maintenance. He was allotted the vehicle TMN. 6336 for carrying out maintenance from February 11, 1983 to February 16, 1983. It is alleged that he had recorded in the logsheet as if he had carried out maintenance. On February 16, 1983 the vehicle was not sent on line due to brake failure. He was also incharge for the maintenance of vehicle TMN. 6421 plying on the route from Dharmapuri to Papparapatti. The vehicle met with an accident near Papparapatti and a damage of Rs. 10,000 was caused. The accident occurred because the pull and push rod was not properly fitted while fixing the main axle assembly on March 21, 1983 and this was due to improper maintenance. It is also alleged that the second respondent has misbehaved with the Junior Engineer, incharge on December 9, 1983 at Dharmapuri branch. He did not carry out the instructions of the Junior Engineer. The domestic enquiry was held by the Management and he was found guilty of all the charges and he was dismissed from service by order dated April 27, 1985. Hence, I.D. No. 122 of 1986 has been filed. Learned counsel for the Management has argued that the first respondent Labour Court even though found the enquiry as fair and proper and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent without backwages. The above award has been assailed in the present Writ petition by the Management. Learned counsel for the Management has argued that the first respondent Labour Court while directing reinstatement without backwages, has not taken note of the past record of the employee nor it had considered the seriousness of the offence. Learned counsel has also argued that right from August 25, 1978 to April 19, 1983 the punishments have been awarded to the second respondent workman on different occasions. In total, there were seven offences for which he was awarded punishments. Learned counsel has argued that there was complete brake failure due to which the bus met with an accident and the bus was not properly maintained by the second respondent-workman. He has further argued that the first respondent did not give reasons for directing reinstatement. The past record of the workman was also not taken note of by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner- management has relied upon the following decisions:
1. Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union v. Christian Medical College, Vellore, (1988-I-LLJ-263) (SC).
2. Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan and Anr. (1994-II-LLJ-888) (SC)
3. New Sherrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao (1997-I-LLJ- 1212) (SC)
4. Sri Gopalakrishna Mills P. Ltd. v. Labour Court (1980- I-LLJ-425) (Mad).
5. Dharmapuri District Co-op, Sugar Mills v. Labour Court (1997-II-LLJ-833) (Mad-DB).
6. Engine Valves Ltd., Madras v. Labour Court (1991-I-LLJ- 372) (Mad).
7. Mannalalv. Second Labour Court 1998 I LLN 862.
5. W.P. No. 18151 of 1991 has been filed by the workman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in not granting him the back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that when the Labour Court revoked the termination of the services of the petitioner, should have awarded the reinstatement with backwages. Aggrieved by the same, W.P. No. 18151 of 1991 has been filed by the employee. Learned counsel for the employee has relied upon the following decisions:
1. Colour Chew Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar and Ors. (1998-I-LLJ- 694) (SC).
2. Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984- I-LLJ-546) (SC).
3. Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. (1984-II-LLJ-10)(SC).
4. Arun v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (1992-I-LLJ-812) (Bom).
5. National Textile Corporation (Mah. North) Ltd. v. Gurunath Vithal Tamase and Ors. (1993-I-LLJ-176)(SC).
6. Gopal Das Rawat v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (1994-II-LLJ- 1173) (All).
6. Learned counsel for the Management Corporation-petitioner in W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 has argued that the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the action was not taken against the respondent-employee since he was participating in the labour association. Learned counsel has assailed the award on the ground that having come to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper, the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the Labour Court did not take note of the past record of the respondent-employee wherein he was awarded punishments. He has further argued that the Labour Court has concluded that the termination of the services of the second respondent was not due to victimisation. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in New Sherrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court has held that when the Labour Court found that enquiry was conducted legally and properly and that the order of discharge was not passed by way of victimisation, the Labour Court was not entitled to order reinstatement and payment of backwages. It is not proper for the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment awarded. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decision of this Court in Sri. Gopalakrishna Mills P. Ltd. v. Labour Court (supra) to substantiate his contention that the length of service of a workman is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for proved misconduct. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the observations made by the Labour Court that the respondent-workman was in continuous service from October 6, 1973 for 11 years. From April 27, 1985 the services of the workman were terminated. It also observed that the punishment imposed on the workman was too severe. Learned counsel has argued that the Labour Court should not have taken into account the length of the service rendered by the workman in ordering reinstatement. Relying upon the above judgment, learned counsel has further argued that if a worker has put in a longer service, he cannot be taken to be licensed to commit misconduct. Leniency in the matter of punishment can only depend on the nature of misconduct and not on the question whether the workman is married or not and whether he has put in a particular period of service. Based on the above, learned counsel has submitted that the observations made by the Labour Court that the workman has put in continuous service should not be taken as criteria for ordering reinstatement.
7. Learned counsel for the employee relied on the case laws with regard to unfair labour practice and victimisation and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge framed.
8. In this case, the Labour Court found that there was no victimisation of the petitioner in W.P. No. 18151 of 1991. Under such circumstances, it has to be held that the case laws cited by the learned counsel is not applicable in the particular circumstances of the case. The Labour Court has found that the explanation offered by the employee with regard to maintenance of the bus could be accepted to some extent but with regard to the explanation he had given to rebuke of Jaishankar in derogatory terms is unacceptable. The Manager has issued orders terminating the services of the employee who was in continuous service from October 6, 1973 for 11 years. In this regard, the Bombay High Court in Mannalal v. Second Labour Court (supra) has held that the Labour Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. The Labour Court or the Tribunal can interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice etc. on the part of the management. This judgment was rendered relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron & Steel Co, Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1958-I-LLJ-260) (SC) and Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. (1973-I-LLJ-278) (SC). In the above judgment (Firestone case), the Supreme Court has held that the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the gravity of offence as the employee was dismissed for assaulting the superior officer in a public place. In this case it is evident from the reading of the award that the Labour Court did not take note of the past record of the employee and also his conduct in not maintaining the bus properly and also having come to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the employee to rebuke Jaishankar in derogatory terms is unacceptable, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Management, on the ground that the employee had put in 11 years of service. For the above reasons, the writ petition filed by the Management-Corporation in W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 is allowed. The writ petition filed by the employee in W.P. No. 18151 of 1991 is dismissed. No costs.