Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 889 (GAU)

Management of Mornoi Tea Estate v. State of Assam

2016-09-27

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. This Writ Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the management of Mornoi Tea Estate challenging the judgment and order dated 06.12.2013 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1843/2007. By that judgment and order the Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by partly modifying the award passed by learned Labour Court on 25.05.2006 in Reference Case No.1/1999. 2. The factual background of the case is that one Sagarika Soren, a worker of Mornoi Tea Estate, was brutally killed on 27.09.1996. The workmen were charged for such development and they demanded to the management for providing a coffin so as to bury the dead body of the slain worker as per the usual process. The management did not provide for the same. The enraged workmen thereafter sought an appointment with the Manager of the Tea Estate. They, in fact, went to the bungalow of the Manager asking for a coffin for the slain co-worker but the management took an exception and described the same to be an act of trespass and misconduct. A domestic enquiry was held against some workmen and thereafter as many as eight workmen, namely, (1) Smt. Sita Marandi, (2) Smt. Juliani, (3) Smt. Sugi Sinduria, (4) Smt. Chita Dhodrai-III, (5) Smt. Flowrance Tudu, (6) Smt. Amrita Burla, (7) Smt. Elani Flora and (8) Smt. Basanti Topno were terminated by the management. Aggrieved, Asom Chah Mazdoor Sangha approached the Government because of such termination and thereupon an industrial dispute was drawn up by the appropriate Government and referred it to Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati for adjudication. The industrial dispute was drawn on the following terms of reference : “1. Whether the Management of Mornai Tea Estate is justified in terminating the services of (1) Smt. Sita Marandi, (2) Smt. Juliani, (3) Smt. Sugi Sinduria, (4) Smt. Chita Dhodrai-III, (5) Smt. Flowrance Tudu, (6) Smt. Amrita Burla, (7) Smt. Elani Flora and (8) Smt. Basanti Topno ? 2. If not, whether the Workmen are entitled to re-instatement with full back wages or any relief in lieu thereof?” 3. Reference Case No.1/1999 was accordingly registered and notices were issued to the parties for filing their respective written statements. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 2. If not, whether the Workmen are entitled to re-instatement with full back wages or any relief in lieu thereof?” 3. Reference Case No.1/1999 was accordingly registered and notices were issued to the parties for filing their respective written statements. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record the learned Labour Court was of the view that when the management had failed to make provision for coffin for burial of Sagarika Soren the workmen became emotional and did commit trespass into the bungalow of the Manager emotionally. According to the learned Labour Court, the act done by them appears to be emotional outburst. Of course, no procedural lapse could be detected in the disciplinary proceeding. Be that as it may, the same Manager whose bungalow was allegedly trespassed passed the order of punishment against the eight workmen terminating their services. The learned Labour Court accordingly held the view that the offence committed by the workmen was not of that serious nature warranting their termination but they could have been released after due admonition. Accordingly, termination/dismissal order was adjudged to be erroneous and set aside. The learned Labour Court directed reinstatement of the eight workmen with back wages to the extent of 50%. This award dated 25.05.2006 was called in question in WP(C) No. 1843/2007. 4. The Hon’ble Single Judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties did not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Labour Court. The Hon’ble Single Judge also noticed that there was no act of physical assault on anybody by the workmen. They staged alleged trespass into the office of Assistant Manager or the bungalow of the Manager. Merely because they walked into the Manager’s bungalow does not warrant a dismissal from service which is certainly disproportionate. The Hon’ble Single Judge accordingly concurred with the findings of the learned Labour Court and held that the award for reinstatement was passed on relevant consideration and is a reasonable decision. As a union worker, Sagarika Soren, was brutally murdered on the previous day there was every reason for the workmen to be surcharged. Even then they were not involved in any destructive activities. They merely asked for a coffin from the management which cannot be said to be an unreasonable one. As a union worker, Sagarika Soren, was brutally murdered on the previous day there was every reason for the workmen to be surcharged. Even then they were not involved in any destructive activities. They merely asked for a coffin from the management which cannot be said to be an unreasonable one. The management failed to extend the facility to the workmen and that had triggered their grievance. Even thereafter they merely wanted to meet the Manager by going to his bungalow. There is no allegation that they rampaged the properties of the Tea Estate or that they did any such overt act which may warrant an order of dismissal. The Hon’ble Single Judge, however, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case modified the award to the extent that the workmen would not be entitled to 50% of the back wages but on equitable consideration passed an order directing the management to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to each of the eight workmen consequent to their reinstatement. 5. We have heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the workmen. We have also heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 6. Having perused the materials available on record and after consideration of the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Hon’ble Single Judge has not committed any error in concurring with the decision as to reinstatement of the concerned workmen. After all, a union leader, Sagarika Soren, was brutally murdered on the previous day. The rank and file were agitated thereby but they wanted merely a coffin for their slain coworker which was also denied by the management. The management does not appear to have acted with due sympathy for the poor workmen. The learned Labour Court as well as the Hon’ble Single Judge duly considered the materials on record and thereupon arrived at the finding that it is not a fit case for dismissal. Having perused the findings of learned Labour Court as well as the Hon’ble Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.