Karnataka High Court
The Workmen Of Lakshmanan Isola Ltd vs The Management Of on 23 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.38997/2010 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
THE WORKMEN OF LAKSHMANAN ISOLA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ENGINEERING AND GENERAL
WORKERS' UNION (SOUTH AND NORTH),
NO.J-120, 3RD CROSS, PIPELINE,
ANJANEYA BLOCK, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
BY ITS PREIDENT.
SINCE ONE WORKMAN BY NAME
SRI CHIKKENAHALLI SHIVANNA
DIED BY HIS LRs.
1(a) SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. D. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1(b) KUM. SRUTHI S.
D/O. D. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
1(c) KUM. SWATHI S.
D/O. D. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
1(d) SRI SAGAR S.
S/O. D. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
SINCE 1(d) BEING MINOR
REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
-2-
ALL THE ABOVE LRs. ARE
R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI,
ANJANAPURA POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SINCE ONE WORKMAN BY NAME
SRI GAVIYAPPA DIED BY HIS LRs.
2(a) SMT. SARASWATHI G.
W/O. SRI LINGESH,
D/O. LATE SRI GAVIYAPPA,
AGED 38 YEARS,
HARISH NILAYA,
R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI,
ANJANAPURA POST,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARAM TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 129.
2(b) SMT. HEMAVATHI G.
W/O. SRI PRAKASHA S.
D/O. LATE SRI GAVIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT ACHHALUDODDI,
KRISHNAPURADODDI POST,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARAM TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 159.
SINCE ONE WORKMAN BY NAME
SRI SHANMUGAM DIED BY HIS LRs.
3(a) SMT. PREMA,
W/O. SHANMUGAM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT MAHATHMA GANDHI NAGARA,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
-3-
3(b) SRI SATHISH BABU
S/O. SHANMUGAM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MAHATHMA GANDHI NAGARA,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. LAKSHMANAN ISOLA LTD.,
POST BOX NO.5,
RAMANAGARAM - 571 511
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
PERTAINING INTO ANNEX-W; QUASH THE AWARD DATED
06.09.2010 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE IN REF.NO.9/2001 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS
MARKED AS ANENX-W BY WHICH THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER
WHICH IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF
I.D. ACT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 22/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
The trade union is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Labour Court, whereby, the claim of the petitioner - Union was rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a registered trade union espousing the cause of the workmen, who were illegally dismissed from service, raised an industrial dispute upon failure of the conciliation, the Government vide order dated 02.05.2001 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. That the respondent - management is an engineering industry having employed several workmen and that the union is called "the Engineering and General Workers Union" affiliated to AITUC during the year 1980. That the union had placed charter of demands on 03.11.1983, respondent -management did not respond to the demands placed by the union and in the said circumstances, the union had to take the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking intervention of the -5- authority, union approached the conciliation officer, and the conciliation officer called upon the parties to appear before the conciliation officer.
3. Further, the respondent - management did not like the employees joining the union and that the respondent-management induced small group of workmen from amongst the total work force to form another union styled as "Lakshmana Isola Employees Union", the new union furnished the list of office bearers to the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions indicating the names of the members of that union and office bearers. The newly formed union Lakshmana Isola Employees Union ("LIEU" for short) placed new charter of demands on 12.01.1984 which ended in settlement on 20.01.1984 after negotiations were held between the union and the management. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-union was unaware about the settlement signed by the management with the LIEU Union. After coming to know, a protest letter was given to -6- the management and the union addressed a letter signed by as many as 29 workmen.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent - management decided to victimise the active members, office bearers and the executive committee members of the union by initiating disciplinary proceedings on the false and frivolous charges and charge sheet was issued, the enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and held the charges levelled against the employees were proved, the disciplinary authority accepted the report and on the question of imposition of punishment arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against employees of the petitioner- union are proved and imposed punishment of dismissal. According to the petitioner, the action on the part of respondent-management in dismissing 13 workmen from the services of the company is a clear case of victimisation and unfair labour practice and raised dispute, Government referred the matter for adjudication before the labour Court. -7-
5. Claim statement was filed, inter alia, contending that the ground of victimisation and unfair labour practice on part of the management and that the enquiry conducted by the respondent - management was not fair and proper.
6. The management appeared and filed counter statement, inter alia, contending that the first party workmen and seven others have committed serious misconduct and they have been charge sheeted on 14.08.1984 for having indulged in quarrelling with the rival group and serious charges of beating and attacking the watchman who was on duty and as per the standing orders of the company the misconduct been riotous and disorderly behaviour, subversive of discipline, intimating or interfering with in anyway with the workmen of the company, assaulting, beating, threatening intimating the other workmen and the enquiry officer having conducted the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice by providing sufficient opportunity to the first party - workmen -8- has held that the charges levelled against the first party was proved. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal which is not disproportionate to the misconduct.
7. The additional issue regarding the conduct of domestic enquiry, the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the workmen was fair and proper, on the question of victimisation and unfair labour practice. The parties let-in their evidence.
8. The Labour Court by the impugned order arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the workmen are considered by holding separate enquiry and charges levelled against the workmen are proved and since the management have lost confidence in the first party union employees has rightly dismissed them from service and by the impugned order rejected the reference and the claim statement of the employees' union. -9-
9. Heard Sri V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K.Subrahmanya learned counsel appearing for Sri B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
10. The sum and substance of the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the orders of dismissal passed against the workmen smack of the victimisation and the penalty of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case.
11. That the victimisation on the part of the management is because of the formation of the employees' union (LIEU) and the respondent-management entered into settlement with the employees' union without the knowledge of the petitioner. That the act on the part of the management is a clear case of victimisation and unfair labour practice, which has been lost sight by the Labour Court and the
- 10 -
relevant material produced by the petitioner has not been considered by the Labour Court.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would justify the order of the Labour Court and would submit that the victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and therefore, it has to be properly and adequately treated giving all particulars and on perusal of the claim statement would indicate that there is no specific allegation of victimisation. What has been stated is that the victimisation would arise in light of the separate union being formed and the charter of demands having been accepted by the said union. Learned counsel would contend that such a ground of victimisation would not be maintainable as the cause for saying victimisation by the management of having a separate union cannot be a ground for victimising the present employees of the union.
13. Learned counsel would submit that there being a serious act on the part of the employees of the petitioner -
- 11 -
union, the charges were levelled and the act of misconduct under the Standing orders of the company. Learned counsel would submit that the order of the Labour Court is justified and does not warrant any interference.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the points that arises for consideration is, whether the award of the Labour Court warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?
15. The petitioner-union is "engineering and general workers union" and affiliated to AITUC. The union submitted charter of demands on 3.11.1983 as the charter of demands was not adhered to by the respondent - management, the petitioner - union approached the department of Assistant Labour Commissioner, wherein the notice was issued to the management to come forward for the settlement. Another union by name Lakshmana Isola Employees; Union ("LIEU") was formed with the list of members on 07.01.1984. After due deliberations with the representatives of the union, on
- 12 -
16.01.1984 and subsequent dates, the memorandum of settlement under Section 2(P) read with Section 18(1), Rule 59 of the Karnataka Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 on 20.01.1984 was entered. For the misconduct on the part of certain employees of the petitioner-union, charge sheet was issued for the acts which amounted to misconduct under the standing orders of the company: (i) Riotous and disorderly behaviour within the premises of the factory, (ii) assaulting, beating, abusing, threatening or intimidating any other workman, (iii) interfering in anyway with any other workman of the company, (iv) acts subversive of discipline. The standing orders were 29.11, 29.31, 29.21 and 29.12. The charge sheet was issued to the employees of the union.
16. To the notice issued to the petitioner-union, the petitioner-union instead of submitting explanation, subsequently submitted a letter addressed to the management seeking clarification regarding the provisions of law under which the punishment of dismissal proposed against the workmen.
- 13 -
17. MW.1 examined on behalf of the management categorically stated that the workers of the petitioner-union had manhandled their co-employees and disobeyed the orders of the superiors and committed serious misconduct. The Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. What stood before the Labour Court was regarding the perversity of the order of the disciplinary authority and whether there was victimization, the Labour Court on the material placed before it held that the there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry nor any victimisation can be inferred from the material on record.
18. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Iron works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others1 held that victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all details upon which charge is 1 AIR 1976 SC 98
- 14 -
based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The fact that there is an union espousing the cause of the employees is the legitimate trade union activity and an employee is a member or active office bearer thereof is per se, no crucial instance though onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be upon the person pleading it. Mere allegations and vague suggestions, and insinuations are not enough. All the particulars of charge are brought out if believed, must be waived by the Tribunal and conclusion should be reached on the totality of the evidence produced and the Apex Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal on no proof of victimization.
19. It is settled proposition of law that the re- appreciation of evidence and interference with the conclusion arrived on the enquiry in the case, the same has been conducted in accordance with law and the judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and (i) this Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence (ii) interfere with the conclusion in the enquiry in
- 15 -
case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based (vi) correct the error of fact however great it may appear and (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
20. The material on record indicates that the act of the workman of the petitioner union was regarding riotous and disorderly behaviour, fighting, assaulting, abusing in the premises of the establishment during the duty hours and such behaviour is one of the heads of misconduct and the Labour Court has rightly held that dismissal is proper and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
- 16 -
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Impugned order passed by the Labour Court is confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE S*