Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1919 (MAD)

Adaikalam v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2017-07-07

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : G.R. Swaminathan, J. There are four appeals before this Division Bench. W.A.(MD) Nos.1417 of 2014 and 586 of 2017 have been filed by the Management of T.S. Samy & Co, Suriyan Beedi Manufacturers, Trichy represented by its Managing Partner. W.A.(MD) No.555 of 2017 has been filed by workman R. Adaikalam, while W.A.(MD) No.556 of 2017 has been filed by another workman R.P. Shanmugam. All the four appeals are directed against the common order dated 06 June 2014 made in W.P.(MD) Nos.9080 and 9081 of 2009. 2. The dispute between the two workmen and the Management dates back to the year 1983. The Management is a Beedi manufacturing industry. Therefore, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958 would cover the case on hand. The Management terminated the services of two workmen and aggrieved by the said termination, an Industrial Dispute was raised. I.D. No. 197 of 1992 was dismissed on 04 August 1994 and questioning the same, the two workmen filed W.P.(MD) No.14513 of 1995. The said petition was allowed by order dated 20 September 2002 and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court. 3. After remand, the matter was taken up and the Labour Court, by award dated 16 March 2005 dismissed the Industrial Dispute petition. Assailing the same, R. Adaikalam filed W.P.(MD) No. 9080 of 2009 and R.P. Shanmugam filed W.P.(MD) No.9081 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge, by a common order dated 06 June 2014. The learned single Judge noted that Section 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958 is pari materia with Section 41(1) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1941. The learned Judge, after referring to various reported decisions held that if the termination is for prove misconduct, no notice is necessary. If the termination is for alleged misconduct, an enquiry must be held giving opportunity to the worker and then only arrive at a conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of the misconduct alleged against the worker. 4. Even though the Management contended that R. Adaikalam had abandoned the service, a mere look at the materials on record would show memos had been issued both against Thiru. Adaikalam as well as Thiru. Shanmugam. 4. Even though the Management contended that R. Adaikalam had abandoned the service, a mere look at the materials on record would show memos had been issued both against Thiru. Adaikalam as well as Thiru. Shanmugam. The typed set filed by the Management contains such materials. The services of a workman working in a Beedi industry can be dispensed with by the Management only for a reasonable cause. Whether the cause is reasonable or not cannot be left to the subjective satisfaction of the Employer. Of course, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the decision reported in 2003(3) CTC 275 , Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., represented by its Deputy Administrative Officer, Talamal House, Bombay v. Iqbal Y. Munshi and Other, held that even though the employer had not conducted any enquiry before the termination, it is open to the employer to adduce evidence and establish the misconduct on the part of the workman at the appellate stage. But, in the present case, the employer did not avail the said opportunity before the Labour Court. That is why the learned single Judge rightly observed that termination of the workmen without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to the workmen was bad in law. 5. Even though the termination of the workman was held to be improper and bad, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge did not award full backwages, but only, directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each of the workmen. 6. Since the backwages was not awarded in full, the workmen filed Writ Appeal Nos.555 and 556 of 2017. Though I.D. No. 197 of 1992 covered both the workmen, two writ appeals were filed individually by the workman. The Management also filed two writ appeals. 7. We heard the learned counsel for the Management and Workmen. We sustain the order passed by the learned single Judge that the termination of both the workmen was not proper. The Management contended that there was no necessity to conduct any enquiry. This contention cannot be accepted, because the expression “reasonable cause” has been employed in Section 31(1) of Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958. What is reasonable to the Management may be unreasonable to the workmen. 8. The Management contended that there was no necessity to conduct any enquiry. This contention cannot be accepted, because the expression “reasonable cause” has been employed in Section 31(1) of Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958. What is reasonable to the Management may be unreasonable to the workmen. 8. In this case, the Management had pleaded in the grounds of appeal that no evidence was adduced by the workmen. The burden to establish the reasonable cause would always rest on the Management and it cannot be shifted to the workmen in the first instance. Merely because memo was issued and explanation was sought for, the statutory requirement would not be met. There is something called enquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to the workmen. In this case, this exercise was not undertaken by the Management either before passing order of termination or during the proceedings before the Labour Court. The learned Judge noted that the dispute dates back to the year 1984. Industrial Dispute was raised only in 1992. Even though after remand, the award was passed on 16.03.2005, the writ petitions were filed only in September 2009. Obviously the workmen would not have been idle during the interregnum period. That is why, exercising equitable jurisdiction, the learned Judge directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each of the workmen. 9. We do not think the workmen would be justified in asking for anything more. The Management has chosen to criticise the order dated 20 September 2002 made in W.P.(MD) No.14513 of 1995. We do not think the said criticism is warranted. If the Management was aggrieved by the order of remand made in the said writ petition, it ought to have questioned the same by filing a writ appeal. Not having done so, it is not open to the Management to question the order of remand made in the said writ petition in these present appeal proceedings. 10. The intra court appeals filed by the Management as well as the workmen are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.