Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of Workmen is that they are the permanent employees of Appellant Management  City Knitting Company, Tiruppur and they are the active members of Banian and Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam affiliated to CITU. Further case of Workmen is that over the dispute of distribution of bonus, Appellant Management refused work to the Respondents Workmen with effect from 11.11.1988 which resulted in raising of Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer on 01.12.1988 requesting for restoration of work. The Labour Officer advised the Appellant Management to restore the Respondents Workmen to duty. But in the mean time, on 07.12.1988, the Management suspended the Respondents Workmen and issued show cause notice by levelling some charges and enquiry was fixed on 28.04.1989. According to Respondents Workmen, no enquiry was held on that date and again the date was fixed on 04.05.1989. Even on that date, no enquiry was held and it was adjourned. Case of Respondents Workmen is that there was no notice with regard to the enquiry. In the mean time, the Appellant Management sent an intimation on 11.10.1989 to the Respondents Workmen that their services were terminated by discharge simpliciter, that too, with retrospective effect from 11.11.1988. Thereafter, Respondents Workmen approached Conciliation Officer for mediation. Since conciliation failed, Respondents Workmen have filed Claim Petitions before the Labour Court.

8. Drawing our attention to the order of the learned single Judge, Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for Respondents workmen submitted that there is perversity in the order of the Labour Court and while so, the learned single Judge rightly interfered with the order. It was further argued that termination order dated 11.10.1989 even though termed as 'termination simpliciter', it was actually punitive. It was further argued that the only person examined before the Labour Court is MW1 and no other witness was examined and no vital documents were marked on the side of the Appellant Management and while so, the Labour Court erred in accepting the plea of Management that it was only 'termination simpliciter'.

21. In any event, the strike between 25.01.1988 and 05.04.1988 the entire Workmen in the factory who are said to have participated and all the Workmen including the Respondents were allowed to resume work after 05.04.1988 pursuant to a compromise between the Unions and the Management. When no action was taken against the other Workmen either for going on strike during the above period or for the alleged loss, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the Labour Court committed an error in taking into account the alleged loss to justify the dismissal of the Respondents Workmen. According to the workmen, when the bonus amount was not correctly calculated and lesser amount was paid, on 11.11.1988 they refused to receive the payment and when they went to the Company for work, the Management did not allow them to work. Further case of the Respondent Workmen is that Management insisted to receive the payment and unless they receive the payment, they would not allow them to work and that they were sent out from the Company and on their being sent out from the factory, they filed application before the Labour officer for resumption of work and restoration of duty. The evidence of MW1 relating to the loss caused during that period of strike conducted by all the workers cannot be the subject matter for decision over the dispute as to whether non-employment through discharge simpliciter justify or not. In our considered view, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the extraneous materials to arrive at the conclusion that termination simpliciter was justified on the ground that illegal strike caused loss to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/-. We are of the view that the Labour Court misdirected itself in taking this aspect into consideration to record a finding that the discharge simpliciter was justified.

30. Whether the workmen abstained from work on 11.11.1988 is a question of fact which the Labour Court has not adverted to. The discharge simpliciter was mainly on the ground that on 11.11.1988, the workers did not attend the work and that they misconducted themselves on 07.12.1988. When such was the accusation in the order of discharge, Labour Court should have gone into the said aspect in order to find out whether actually workmen voluntarily abstained from the work on 11.11.1988 and the question of misconduct on 07.12.1988. As pointed out by the learned single Judge that the main reason given by the Labour Court justifying the discharge simpliciter was that there was huge loss caused to the Manager due to the illegal strike conducted by the workers including the Respondents Workmen. As discussed earlier, the said loss was not for the relevant period, but for the period from 25.1.1988 to 05.4.1988 and the learned single Judge rightly held that the said reason was not germane to the issue raised in the proceedings.