Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1581 (PNJ)

Inder Parsad v. Frick India Limited

2009-09-07

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. By the impugned award of the Labour Court dated 14.1.1998 the workmans prayer for rendering the order of termination made pursuant to a domestic enquiry was rejected. The Labour Court found that he was not entitled to reinstatement or any other amount except the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. It is this manner of disposal of the reference that is challenged in the writ petition before this Court by the workman. 2. A domestic enquiry had been constituted on two charges namely that the workman stopped two staff members Mr. S.N. Pal, the General Manager and Mr. Manohar Lal and other Officers from entering the factory on 22.7.1998 when there was a gate meeting of the workers outside the factory. He was also reported to have used foul language and caused physical assaults on both officers. The other charge was that on 27.3.1989 he had come to the factory to participate in a domestic enquiry held against him and since the enquiry officer had not arrived he was loitering inside the factory and misbehaved with the Security Officer Kartar Singh by catching hold by his neck with both hands and strangulating him. There was one Roop Singh who bore actual witness to the incident. 3. Two domestic enquiries were held for these two instances. The Labour Court found that the enquiry had not been held properly and by an interim order found that it was not fair and proper. The Management sought to prove the misconduct by seeking to amend the reply bringing in more facts and also proving the misconduct by evidence before the Labour Court. 4. The objection of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman was that the Labour Court was unjustified in taking up the enquiry in two stages and allowing the Management to improve its version by permitting them to amend the written statement and bring also the witnesses who were supposed to have been enquired before the enquiry officer. In my view this objection is not tenable for though as a matter of pure practical exigency, it should be the endeavour of the Labour Court not to take up the cases piece meal as regards the propriety and legality of the enquiry and an enquiry relating to the merits of the case. In my view this objection is not tenable for though as a matter of pure practical exigency, it should be the endeavour of the Labour Court not to take up the cases piece meal as regards the propriety and legality of the enquiry and an enquiry relating to the merits of the case. However, even the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Workmen v. Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 allowed for a right to the Management to let in evidence and prove misconduct before the Court when the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was nor fair and proper. Various Courts approach this issue in various ways. It may be possible that the Labour Court allows parties to adduce evidence on all aspects. When the issue involves also the question of adjudication about the fairness and the propriety of enquiry, whenever the Court finds the enquiry to be not proper, give the liberty to the Management to tender further evidence if such permission is sought by the Management. There could also be instances where the enquiry itself is taken only as regards the propriety and fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and post the case for further enquiry on all other aspects. In this case it has adopted the latter procedure and when it held that the enquiry was not fair and proper, it was bound to give an opportunity for the Management to adduce fresh evidence if such a request was made. 5. Even as regards the contention of the learned counsel for the workman that the Labour Court ought not to have permitted the Management to amend its pleadings, it shall be seen that the manner of amendment referred to four aspects namely i) No demand notice had been given prior to conciliation; ii) The Management has lost its confidence in the workman and had offered a cheque of Rs. 8308.35/- for notice pay and retrenchment compensation; iii) the workman had been profitably employed on higher salary and iv) his past conduct had been one of recurrent trouble making and compensation alone would be appropriate relief even if the discharge was found to be harsh or improper. The Labour had actually found all the first three objections to be not tenable and took note only of the relevance of the past conduct. The Labour had actually found all the first three objections to be not tenable and took note only of the relevance of the past conduct. In my view, the workman cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner by such a exercise for a Labour Court exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of a case of termination was entitled to look into the past records. (Please refer to Bharat Forgo Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nahate, 2005(1) SCT 745 : (2005)2 SC 489). The said provision only prohibits reference to Court which are not brought before Court by the provisions only prohibits reference to Court which are not brought before Court by the proviso contained under Section 11-A. It shall always be possible for the Management to join issue on the nature of punishment to be awarded and give evidence of the justification for the manner of punishment to be meted out. While the Labour Court could not have relied on past records only for the sake of considering the punishments if they had not been produced during the enquiry, if they had been rendered in the enquiry itself with notice to the workman, such a procedure cannot be faulted. (vide, Workman v. Firestone and Rubber Co. Ltd., (1973) 1 LLJ 278). The additional issues that were framed on the basis of additional pleadings became relevant therefore, only with reference to the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment. 6. The substantive grounds urged on the issue of proof of misconduct had been dealt with by the Labour Court by considering the evidence placed before the Court. Mr. S.N. Pal was examined as PW-1, who deposed about the occurrence when he was stopped at the gate and hurled with filthy language. He also complained that he was pushed physically by the workman and he almost fell on the ground. He also complained that he was hit on the chest. Yet another person Mr. G.S. Sokhey was also reported to have been physically assaulted by the workman and the turban that he was wearing was undone. Mr. Sokhey was reported to have been so much shaken that he left the job. The Labour Court found through evidence that the charge of stopping some of the staff from entering the factory and causing physical assaults to be established. Mr. Sokhey was reported to have been so much shaken that he left the job. The Labour Court found through evidence that the charge of stopping some of the staff from entering the factory and causing physical assaults to be established. The Security Officer Kartar Singh also supported the case of the Management by stating that he was physically assaulted on 27.3.2009. The victims of the incident had given cogent evidence before the Labour Court and they also stood their ground in the cross-examination. The Labour Court had elaborately considered the quality of evidence of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the charges were comprehensively proved. Learned counsel appearing for the Management submits that the workman who was guilty of causing physical assault, was indeed making himself liable of serious charge enough to merit the case on dismissal. He relied on the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, 2005(2) SCT 236 : (2005)3 SCC 134, that the dismissal of the workman for using abusive language could not be held to be disproportionate. Even while applying the parameters of discretion available under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and another v. State of Karnataka and others, 2006(1) SCT 197 : (2006)1 SCC 430, the Honble Supreme Court said that our country is governed by rule of law and industrial discipline at the work place is paramount. The Honble Court underscored the adherence and endorsement of discipline at the work place and held that misconduct or indiscipline or insubordination by assault on superior, even on grave provocation by senior would require to be dealt with strongly by imposing a punishment of dismissal. These decisions expound the precept that punishment of removal for misconduct of physical assaults on the superior officers would be justified, if only it is to preserve industrial discipline at the work place. 7. The award of the Labour Court is a well balanced approach to all the contentious issues and I find no ground to interfere. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. Petition dismissed.