Bombay High Court
Shri Mahendra K. Raut vs M/S. Gopalanand Rasayan on 2 April, 2014
Author: N. M. Jamdar
Bench: N. M. Jamdar
spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3141 OF 1999
Shri Mahendra K. Raut ... Petitioner.
Aged 42 years, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at Umar Gaothan, Krishna Dham,
Post. Agashe, Tal. Vasai, Dist. Thane-401301
V/s.
M/s. Gopalanand Rasayan
ig ... Respondent.
D-18/ M.I.D.C. Area, Tarapur, Post. Boisar,
Dist. Thane.
---
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2983 OF 2000
Gopalanand Rasayan ... Petitioner.
(A Division of The Indian Link Chain
Manufactures Ltd.,)
D-18/ M.I.D.C. Area, Tarapur, Post. Boisar,
Dist. Thane.
V/s.
Shri Mahendra Krishna Raut ... Respondent.
R/at Umargaothan, Krishna Dham,
Post. Agashe, Tal. Vasai, Dist. Thane-401301
---
Mr. S.S. Sayyed i/by I. S. Thakur for the Petitioner in WP No. 3141
of 1999 and for the Respondent in WP No. 2983 of 2000.
Mr. Vinod Tayade i/by Piyush Shah for the Respondent in WP No.
3141 of 1999 and for the Petitioner in WP No. 2983 of 2000.
---
Borey 1/10
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 :::
spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw
CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 02 APRIL, 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 These Petitions are filed challenging the Award dated 28 February 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Thane, whereby the Labour Court, rejected the claim of workman for reinstatement with full back-wages and granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
2 Writ Petition No. 3141 of 1999 is filed by the workman -
Mahendra K. Raut, challenging the Award impugned and the Writ Petition No. 2983 of 2000 is filed by the Management -Gopalanand Rasayan, challenging the Award. Mr. Raut is aggrieved by the denial of reinstatement with full back wages; while the Management is aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation and the finding that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate.
3 Mr. Raut was employed with the Management. A chargesheet came to be issued against him on 2 May 1983 and 5 May 1983. The chargesheet dated 2 May 1983 alleged that Mr. Raut along with other workmen in willful insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superiors, went on illegal strike, abetting and instigating or acting in furtherance thereof. It was alleged that on 21 March 1983, Mr. Raut was on duty and in a pre- planned and concerted manner along with others stopped work, stopped the plant operations and prevented the loading of finished goods. It was the case of the Management that the notice as required Borey 2/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw by law was not given and the act of Mr. Raut alongwith the others of going on illegal strike was a misconduct.
4 Another chargesheet came to be issued on 5 May 1983 against Mr. Raut and others in respect of an incident that took place on 6 April 1983. It was alleged that Mr. Raut and others assembled at the gate of the factory premises, pushed aside the watchman and forced their entry in the office building, entered the control room, dragged the newly engaged temporary workers out of the premises and threatened them and threw stones at them.
ig It was also stated
that one of the workman picked up a steel rod and attacked a
temporary workman, while the other workman tried to assault the temporary workmen with a stone and in the meanwhile, Mr. Raut and others dragged one temporary workman out of the gate of the factory premises.
5 An enquiry was held against Mr. Raut. An opportunity was given to Mr. Raut to participate in the inquiry before the enquiry officer. The charges were, firstly, of going on illegal strike with willful insubordination of superiors, and secondly, riotous and disorderly indecent behaviour in the factory premises. After the enquiry officer submitted his report, a dismissal order came to be issued to Mr. Raut on 27 September 1983. A Reference was made to the Commissioner of Labour under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Labour Court at Thane, as a Reference (IDA) No. 16 of 1985.
Borey 3/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw
6 The Labour Court Thane firstly considered whether the
enquiry held by the Company was fair and proper. The Labour
Court held that full opportunity was given to Mr. Raut to represent himself. The contention of Mr. Raut that he was not allowed to cross-examine the Management's representative was not accepted.
The contention of Mr. Raut that the enquiry report was not supplied, was found to be without substance. Accordingly, the Labour Court declared Part -I Award on 16 April 1993, holding that the enquiry held by the Management was fair and proper. In the enquiry, both charges were held to be proved against Mr. Raut.
7 The Labour Court thereafter considered the matter under Part
-II of the Award. The Labour Court framed an issue as to whether Mr. Raut proved that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and whether the punishment was disproportionate. The Labour Court held that the Management proved the misconduct specified in the chargesheet dated 5 May 1983 regarding riotous behaviour on 16 April 1983. The Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was very harsh because the act by Mr. Raut must have been done at the spur of moment. The Labour Court, however, did not grant relief of reinstatement on the ground that Mr. Raut was re-
employed in another company for some time and after 11 years it was not appropriate now to put Mr. Raut back in service. The Labour Court accordingly directed the Management to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. This order dated 28 February 1997 has been challenged by Mr. Raut as well as by the Management.
Borey 4/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw
8 The learned counsel for Mr. Raut contended that the Labour
Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the punishment given to Mr. Raut was shockingly disproportionate and that he was entitled to reinstatement. He submitted that, however, on non-
germen consideration the reinstatement has been refused and only a paltry sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been given as a compensation. According to the learned counsel for Mr. Raut the charges were absolutely baseless and Mr. Raut alone did not commit the act and the act and/ or action of Mr. Raut must be considered in totality of the facts and circumstances. The learned counsel for Mr. Raut relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasanti M. Shah vs. All India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd., reported in (II) LLJ 1984 Gujarat High Court pg. 69, the decision of learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Air Lanka Ltd., vs. John William Nathan & Anr. reported in 1990 (I) LLJ Madras High Court pg. 291 and the decision of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Charles vs. First Additional Labour Court, Madras & Anr., reported in 1994 -II L.L.N. Madras High Court pg. 181.
9 The learned counsel for the Management on the other hand submitted that Mr. Raut was guilty of riotous behaviour which fact has been proved in the enquiry and upheld by the Labour Court and the Labour Court without giving any reasons at all, has termed the action of the Management of dismissal, as disproportionate. He Borey 5/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw submitted that there is no discussion as regards this conclusion and reliance placed by the Labour Court on the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasanti Shah (supra) is totally mis-placed. The learned counsel submitted that the finding that the punishment of dismissal is dis-proportionate and consequential direction to pay compensation, are perverse. He submitted that all the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Mr. Raut are distinguishable on facts.
10 Thus the main issue that is to be considered is whether the finding of the Labour Court that the dismissal of Mr. Raut is shockingly disproportionate, is correct. If the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment is disproportionate is upheld then the question of reinstatement or enhancement of compensation will arise. If the finding is to be held as perverse, there would be no question of reinstatement or compensation. The finding of fact which is established in the enquiry and accepted by the Labour Court is that Mr. Raut alongwith the others forcibly entered the factory premises, physically dragged the temporary workmen, pelted stones at them and one person from the group used an iron rod. It was an use of violence and an assault in the premises. The charge of riotous behaviour is proved.
11 The learned counsel for Mr. Raut contended that such action should be condoned firstly because that was a part of the mass- movement and because Mr. Raut were pushed to indulge in such act by the Management. Heavy reliance is placed on the observations Borey 6/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasanti (supra) by the learned counsel for Mr. Raut and also by the Labour Court. In the case of Vasanti, she was a senior sales assistant in the All India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd.. Allegation against her was that, she alongwith the others, protested against the transfer of some of the employees and sat outside the office and indulged into anti-canvassing activity. There was no violence. She was proceeded with and a disciplinary action was taken against her. In this connection the Division Bench observed that the mass-movement and actions taken by the striking workmen cannot be judged on the touchstone of cold logic, detached form from the atmosphere when the actions take place.
Firstly, the observation of the Division Bench must be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. Gravity of the misconduct attributed to the delinquent would be a relevant consideration. One fails to understand, how pelting stones, dragging the temporary employees and rioting in the management premises can be condoned merely on the ratio of the Decision of the Division Bench, without analyzing the facts.
12 Even assuming that such approach is possible, there must be substantial reasons on record and finding to that effect that such riotous behavour was pardonable in view of the certain factual position. In the impugned judgment the Labour Court has given no such finding . The Labour Court has dealt with this issue in one sentence, holding that the act must have been done at the spur of moment and the atmosphere was tense due to the strike. This is not Borey 7/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw even a finding but a conclusion based on conjuncture. What were the surrounding circumstances, how did the action develop, is not discussed at all. If the action of rioting in the premises is to be condoned and the action of dismissal is to be considered as harsh then the Labour Court should have elaborated the reasons for such conclusion. The learned counsel for Mr. Raut, apart from making general arguments regarding tendency and behavour of the employers, is unable to show any such discussion in the impugned order. The entire basis of the conclusion that the punishment is harsh, is based on no discussion.
ig The Labour Court in one line has swept away the concept of maintaining discipline at the work place.
13 The ratio of the decision of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vasanti (supra) has been mechanically applied by the Labour Court. In other two decisions of the learned single Judges of the Madras High Court are not relevant to the case in hand at all. In case of Air Lanka Ltd. (supra), the delinquent therein was found removing an air travel bag without permission. In the circumstances of the case, the Madras High Court found that the reinstatement was not proper and the compensation in lieu of reinstatement was granted. It was not a case at all of the riotous and disorderly behaviour. In the case of Charles (supra), the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court was dealing with the case of filthy words spoken by the delinquent therein and the learned single Judge took a view that utterance of those words was a trivial Borey 8/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw matter. Surely, the action of Mr. Raut in rioting in the premises cannot be equated with using improper words.
14 The learned counsel for the Management has pointed out that Mr. Raut himself has admitted that all the employees who were chargesheeted for this incident have been dismissed from service. So Mr. Raut has been not discriminated or has been singled out. The Management has taken uniform decision to dismiss the workmen who were chargsheeted for rioting. The learned counsel for the Management ig is thus right in contending that action of dismissal cannot be considered as disproportionate. Further more as pointed out above, there is no discussion at all as to how the conduct of Mr. Raut was justified.
15 Though the Labour Court has refused to grant reinstatement in service on the ground that Mr. Raut for some time was employed elsewhere, the basic premise that Mr. Raut was entitled to reinstatement is itself incorrect. The Labour Court came to that finding only on the ground that the punishment was harsh and disproportionate. Once it is held that this finding is not proper, then there is no question of grant of reinstatement to Mr. Raut. Consequently, therefore, there is no question of grant of any compensation to Mr. Raut. The action of the Management in proceeding to dismiss Mr. Raut alongwith the others chargesheeted employees for riotous behavoiur could not have been termed as disproportionate.
Borey 9/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 ::: spb/ 201wp3141-99-2983-2000.sxw
16 The learned counsel for the Management has placed on record
that the Management has closed down its establishment on 16 January 2006 and has put an end to the services of all the employees on 17 February, 2006. The factory premises have been disposed of pursuant to the deed of assignment dated 22 June 2006 to one Spack Chemicals Private Limited. The Indian Link Chain Manufacturers Limited of which the Management was a division has also been closed down, Be that as it may, in view of the above findings since there is no question of grant of reinstatement to Mr. Raut, this issue need not be dealt with any further.
17 Accordingly, the Writ Petition No. 2983 of 2000 is allowed and the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. The Award passed by the Labour Court dated 28 February 1997 is quashed and set aside.
18 Writ Petition No. 3141 of 1999 is dismissed and the Rule in the said petition is discharged.
(N. M. JAMDAR, J.) .....
Borey 10/10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:28:16 :::