Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.10. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that, with regard to the charge of refusal to work, it is pertinent to note that the work of cleaning, sweeping, etc., had always been carried out by contract workers, whereas NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13493/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/20252024 undefined the workmen who are members of the petitioner-Union were employed as technicians. He submits that none of the witnesses of the respondent-company have established that any specific notice or memo was issued to the concerned employees for the alleged misconduct.

4.21. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that, with regard to the allegations of misconduct such as acts of sabotage, obstructing contract workers, and stopping vehicles carrying goods and materials as referred to in the complaints and Chapter Case filed before the learned Executive Magistrate the petitioner-workmen had also filed Chapter Cases against the officers of the respondent-company. However, both sets of Chapter Cases were withdrawn in view of the settlement dated NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13493/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/20252024 undefined 20.01.2000. Despite this, the learned Industrial Tribunal, while rendering its findings, failed to consider the Chapter Cases filed by the petitioner-Union and solely relied upon those filed by the respondent- company. This selective reliance on material evidence, while disregarding the relevant documents filed by the workmen, renders the findings of the Tribunal erroneous and unsustainable in law.

4.25. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the respondent-company is engaged in manufacturing and production activities and has employed workmen under two distinct categories: (i) regular workmen appointed as technicians qualified ITI holders numbering approximately 450, and (ii) workers engaged through a contract system, performing tasks such as sweeping, cleaning, loading and unloading, shifting materials, dumping raw materials into machines, collecting alphas from the areas around the machines, and re-dumping the same into the machines, as well as sulfur packing, etc., numbering around 250. The petitioner-Union has established, through documentary evidence produced below Exhibit 12/16 specifically a letter dated 01.04.1999 issued by Mr. Shailendra Jain, President of the Birla Group that certain directions were given regarding NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13493/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/20252024 undefined cost reduction and productivity enhancement. In the said communication, a target was set to reduce the workforce by 10%, to be implemented from 01.10.1999 onwards. Pursuant to this directive, it was instructed to immediately freeze new recruitments, lay off low-performing staff, discontinue temporary employees, and redistribute the workload among the existing workforce.

4.26. In implementation of the aforesaid communication, the company began to compel and pressurize the technicians, who were primarily responsible for operating and maintaining machinery and production equipment to undertake tasks previously assigned to contract workers, such as floor cleaning, breaking sulfur, lifting raw materials, shifting materials, and handling loading/unloading of finished and unfinished products.