Karnataka High Court
M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs C Subramanya Reddy on 1 April, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.1376 OF 2009(L)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.4833 OF 2010(L)
WA.NO.1376/2009:
BETWEEN:
M/s.Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd.,
Machine Tool Manufactures
Peenya, Yeswanthpur,
Bangalore - 560 022.
Represented by its President
Sri S.N.Mishra. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri A.Y.N.Gupta, Advocate and Sri J.Aravind Babu,
Advocate)
AND:
Sri Subramanya Reddy
S/o Sri Chenga Reddy
Major by age,
2
No.9, 4th Block, Gopalappa Garden,
Doddabomma Sandra,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560 022. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri T.Narayanaswamy, Advocate for
M/s.M.C.Narasimhan Associates, Advocates)
*****
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.23184/2004 dated
18.3.2009.
WA.No.4833/2010:
BETWEEN:
Sri Subramanya Reddy
S/o Sri Chenga Reddy
Aged about 51 years
R/o No.9, 4th Block, Gopalappa Garden,
Doddabomma Sandra,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560 022. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri T.Narayanaswamy, Advocate for
M/s.M.C.Narasimhan Associates, Advocates)
AND:
M/s.Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd.,
Machine Tool Manufactures
Peenya, Yeswanthpur,
Bangalore - 560 022.
Represented by its President
3
Sri S.N.Mishra. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri A.Y.N.Gupta, Advocate and Sri J.Aravind Babu,
Advocate)
*****
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.25638/2005 dated
18.3.2009.
These Writ Appeals having been heard and reserved
for judgment on 25.03.2014 coming on this day,
Ravi Malimath J., pronounced the following:-
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 18-3-2009 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing both the writ petition Nos.23184/2004 and 25638/2005 the respective respondents have filed the present appeals.
2. The employer is a Machine Tool manufacturer. The workman who was working as operator/turner was appointed as a trainee on 22-9-1980. A strike call was given by the Union on 25-3-1995. The workman did not 4 attend the factory on that day. The supervisory personnel were asked to attend the factory on that day and operate the machines. The supervisor started EEM-500 machine. It did not work. It was noticed that the parameters were brought down from 2240 to 0 by way of tampering. That the workman sabotaged the machine EEN-500 at the close of his shift on the previous day. Therefore he was issued with a show cause notice. He furnished his explanation. The same was not satisfactory. A domestic enquiry was initiated. The workman participated in the same. The enquiry officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was dismissed from service. He raised a dispute before the Labour Court. By the order dated 21-4-2004 his claim petition was allowed. The order of dismissal was set aside. The employer was directed to reinstate the workman in service with 50% of backwages and continuity of service and proportionate consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the employer filed writ petition No.23184/2004 seeking dismissal. The workman 5 filed writ petition No.25638/2005 seeking full backwages. Both the writ petitions were heard together and by the common impugned order, both the writ petitions were dismissed. The employer has filed WA.No.1376/2009 seeking dismissal of the workman. The workman has filed WA.No.4833/2010 seeking full backwages.
3. The learned counsel for the employer contends that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge committed an error in passing the impugned orders. That the Labour Court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. That the Labour Court misread the material and evidence on record. On considering the material evidence on record the Labour Court was of the view that the workman has to be given the benefit of doubt. The reasonings assigned by the Labour Court runs from para-20 onwards. In conclusion the Labour Court held as follows:-
6
"Hence, first party deserved the benefit of doubt. This benefit was denied to him though the same was extended to the operators of the other machines. Therefore, in my sincere opinion the finding of the Enquiry officer holding first party guilty of the alleged sabotage having more based on suspicion and having given in utter disgard to some facts creating reasonable doubts about the guilt of the first party has to be held as perverse and first party has to be given benefit of doubt which he deserves. Hence, this is fit case to set aside the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer."
The appellant further contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in upholding the order of the Labour Court. That he committed an error in ignoring the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry. That the learned Single Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the charges against the workman has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence he 7 pleads that his appeal be allowed by upholding the order of dismissal.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the workman contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court committed an error in granting only 50% backwages. In view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court he is entitled to full backwages. That the learned single Judge committed an error in upholding the order of the Labour Court. That the learned Single Judge should have rightly granted full backwages. Hence, he pleads that his appeal be allowed by granting full backwages.
5. Heard learned counsels and examined the material on record. The Labour Court held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. The charge against the workman was that he tampered with the machine EEN 500 8 by altering the spindle speed limitation from 2240 to '0' and as such it amounts to misconduct of an act subversive to discipline and willful damage to or loss of company's property. The same was denied by the workman. It was his case that when he worked on the machine on 24-3-1995, it was in perfect working condition and there was no tampering by him. On considering the order of the Labour Court the learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no reason that calls for any interference. That the findings of the Labour Court with regard to the breakdown of the machine and the attendant problems were well justified. Even so far as backwages is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that since 1998 onwards the workman has not been paid salary or Section 17-B wages. He has been paid the same since 2005. Therefore under these circumstances, the petitions were dismissed.
6. We have considered the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Labour Court. The 9 learned Single Judge in the course of his order determined the points for consideration as follows:-
"Whether the finding of the inquiry authority is fair and proper and, Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that charges leveled against the workman is not proved and the workman is only entitled to 50% back wages with other proportionate consequential benefits."
In considering the said issue the learned Single Judge at para-8 of the Judgment held as follows:-
"......... Might be the Presiding Officer would have proceeded on the basis that the management did not establish the case against the workman beyond doubt and thus, extended the benefit of doubt. Might be this is contrary to labour jurisprudence and the enquiry proceedings. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the principle is, it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Unlike the same, so as to hold the workman guilty for misconduct all probable circumstances and the conduct of the workman in the 10 circumstances would form the basis to hold him guilty of the charges levelled against him......"
Various other findings are also recorded by the learned Single Judge, which would not be necessary to be adverted to. The learned Single Judge primarily held that may be the Presiding Officer would have proceeded on the basis that the management did not establish the case of the workman beyond doubt, thus extended the benefit of doubt, and that might be this is contrary to labour jurisprudence and the enquiry proceedings. We are unable to accept this reasoning. Having come to the conclusion that the Labour Court has committed an error in misapplying the principles of law, it was only just and appropriate that the learned Single Judge should have remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The same was not done. The apparent error noticed by the learned Single Judge in the order of the Labour Court did not receive the due attention that it deserves. The erroneous manner in which the Labour 11 court had proceeded with, should have been a sufficient reason to set aside the order of the Labour Court. Once an error is noticed, it requires to be rectified. It cannot be done, by upholding the same. The error has to be rectified by ordering a fresh enquiry.
7. We are of the considered view that the Labour Court has given a go-bye to the well established principles of law while adjudicating the dispute. It is not a criminal trial where the benefit of doubt requires to be extended. These are proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The manner in which the Labour Court is to function has been defined and reiterated time and again by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It does not need any elaboration any more. The Labour Court misdirected itself in arriving at such a conclusion. Applying such a principle to Labour matters is wholly misconceived. In our view the Labour Court has committed a blunder in so holding. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the 12 findings recorded by the Labour court requires to be set aside. The very premise on which the entire order of the Labour Court is based is unsustainable. It is only just and necessary that the facts & circumstances be considered by the Labour Court in a just, appropriate and reasonable manner.
8. Under these circumstances, therefore it was only just and necessary that the learned Single Judge should have redirected the consideration of the matter afresh by the Labour Court. It is only then that justice would have been done. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error in upholding the order of the Labour Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the basis on which the order of the Labour Court is passed cannot be sustained.
For the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are allowed. The order dated 18.3.2009 passed by the learned 13 single Judge in writ petition 23184/2004 and 25638/2005 is set aside. The writ petitions are partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 21-4-2004 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in ID No.81/1998. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Bangalore for fresh consideration in accordance with law and based on the observations made hereinabove. In view of the long passage of time, the Labour Court is directed to hear and dispose off the matter within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
All contentions are kept open.
Writ appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk/-