High Court · 1995
Case Details
WP(C) 1245/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A. Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners who are t he workmen of Letekujan Tea Estate (T.E). The management is represented by Mr. T. Deuri. 2. The petitioner were in a group of 15 workmen of the Letekujan T.E. whose services were terminated on 21.10.1995. Earlier a notice was issued to the peti tioner on 22nd July 1995 and on the same day a Charge Memo with the following ch arges were levelled against the workmen. On 22.7.1995, you along with others abandoning your rightful place of wo
Legal Reasoning
For ready reference the 4 charges are being extracted hereinbelow : (cid:28)1) rk, formed an unlawful assembly in front of Sr. Manager’s Office at 8-00 a.m. IS T. 2) t using abusive languages against the management. 3) You have also indulged in riotous conduct in dragging out Mr. A. Nandkeo lyar, Mr. S. Singh, Mr. S.S. Banerjee from inside the office and forcing them to accompany the agitated workers, to the nearby football field with malafide inte You had led a group of agitated workers inciting them for riotous conduc During the process you have also assaulted Mr. S.S. Banerjee Asst. Manag ntions. 4) er with sharp edged lethal weapon causing physical injury to self. 5) You have also kept the above mentioned managerial personnel under illega l confinement in the football field for more than 4 hours. You have also assault ed Mr. P. Toppo in football field at around 9-15 a.m. (IST). You have also, at about 9-00 a.m. (IST), misbehaved with the Medical Off 6) icer, Dr. T. Dutta, dragging him out from the hospital and in the process assaul ted him and caused grievous injuries to his self. (cid:29) 3. As the explanation of the workmen were not found satisfactory a domestic enquiry was held and the charged workmen were held guilty of the charge and the reafter they were dismissed from service w.e.f. 21.10.1995. On the resultant Ind ustrial Dispute the following issues was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court : (cid:28)(a) Is the management of Letekujan T.E. justified in dismissing Sarv ashree (1) Jiban Singh Rajewar (2) Debraj Charengi (3) Lakheri Lahar (4) Promila Lehar (5) Moriom Lima (6) Saraswati Chetry (7) Gouri Lahar (8) Saibika (9) Cham pabati Tali (10) Lacua Tanti (11) Amal Kelat (12) Sibnarayan Guwala (13) Prem Sa i Gerh (14) Dipen Lehar (15) Sheela Konch fro services w.e.f. 21.10.1995. (b) If no, are the said workmen entitled to reinstatement with back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof ? (cid:29) After considering the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court gave 4. the award on 17.5.2005 (Annexure-5) to the effect that the workmen indulged in r iotous conduct, used abusive language, assaulted and illegally confined the T.E. managers in the football field and accordingly reference was answered in favour of the management and it was declared that the workmen are disentitled to get any relief. 5. Assailing the legality of the Award, advocate Mr. A. Thakur argues that the Presiding Officer failed to take into account the contradiction in the evide nce of the management witnesses. Pointing out that the workmen in the T.E. were surcharged on the concerned date i.e. 22.7.1995 as they didn’t receive water sup ply from 19th to 22nd July 1995 and he submits that the conduct of the workmen s hould have been considered in the backdrop of the frustration felt by everyone f or disruption of water supply to the labour quarters for 4 consecutive 4 days in the peak summer days in July, 1995. 6. Mr. Thakur also submits that Mr. A. Nandkeolyar was the Sr. Manager of t he T.E. and it is he who issued the notice and the Charge Memo to the petitioner s. The same Senior Manager also gave evidence as a witness in the domestic enqui ry and as the disciplinary authority, he issued the termination order. The Couns el therefore argues that the Sr. Manager being a witness and alleged victim of c onfinement, could not have acted dispassionately as the disciplinary authority a nd accordingly the termination order is contended to be vindictive and dispropor tionate to the misconduct. Referring to the evidence of the Asstt. Manager of the T.E., Mr. S.S. Ba 7. nerjee, Mr. Thakur submits that is was a group of the women who pulled out the m anagers from their office and marched them to the football field and the testimo ny says that it is the ladies who confined and assaulted the T.E. managers. Proj ecting that there was a gathering of over 400 persons in the football field, the Counsel argues that few of the workmen were selectively targeted by the managem ent and that is why the impugned proceeding is contended to be vitiated. 8. Representing the management, advocate Mr. T. Deuri submits that a Writ C ourt can’t act as an Appellate Court to re-examine the evidence and accordingly he submits that some minor discrepancy in the domestic enquiry will not justify Court’s interference. In support of his submission, the respondent’s lawyer reli es upon the decisions in Sadhu Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in ( 1983) 4 SCC 156; Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chaj Mazdoor Sangh reported in (2004) 8 SCC 200 and State Bank of India vs. Ramlal Bhaskar reporte d in (2011) 10 SCC 249. 9. The participations of the Sr. Manager, who issued the Charge Memo and wh o also appeared as a witness in the domestic enquiry and who issued dismissal or der, is contended by the petitioner to be a vitiating factor which led to denial of a fair consideration for the aggrieved workmen. Here the Sr. Manager acted a s the Prosecutor and Judge in respect of the allegation in which he was personal ly involved and this obviously lends credence to the submission of the petitione rs that penal action was taken against the workmen, by a biased disciplinary aut hority. 10. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reporte d in (2010) 10 SCC 539 has held that if a person appears as a witness in a disc iplinary proceeding, he can’t himself be an Inquiry Officer nor he can pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority. This rule has been held to be s acrosanct since apprehension of bias operates as a disqualification for a person to act as an adjudicator. According to the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision a nyone who has a personal interest in a disciplinary proceeding must keep himself away as otherwise violation of the principles of natural justice renders the or der null and void. 11. The participation of the Sr. Manager of the T.E. as the witness and the adjudicator indicates a real possibility of bias of the disciplinary authority. This can’t be considered to be a minor flaw which can be legitimately overlooke d even by a Writ Court. The selective targeting of the 15 workmen from a gatheri ng of 400 also suggests biasness. The evidence of the Asst. Manager, Mr. S.S. Ba nerjee shows that they were dragged out by the women and were confined by a ladi es group in a gathering of 400 persons in the football field. But the learned La bour Court failed to take note of the contradictory evidence of the management w itnesses and also ignored the real possibility of biasness of the disciplinary a uthority, who himself was a witness in the domestic enquiry. Therefore it is hel d that the impugned Award dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure-5) can’t be sustained and t he same is accordingly set aside and quashed. In consequence, the management is directed to reinstate the workmen whose services were terminated on 21.10.1995. 12. On the issue of back wages, the management’s advocate Mr. T. Deuri submi ts that since no service was received, back wages should not be ordered. In his turn, the workmen’s lawyer Mr. A. Thakur submits that as tea garden labourer, th e petitioners not only received wages they also got ration, clothing, firewood, medicine, housing etc. and because of their termination in the year 1995 the wor kmen have been pushed to a state of penury and they are practically on the stree t. Accordingly Mr. Thakur submits that although workmen may not be paid full bac k wages, they should be given some compensatory amount to rehabilitate themselve s and to recoup their strength and health for a working life. 13. Balancing the interest of the management and the workmen on the issue of back wages, I feel that the management should be absolved of the responsibility to pay back wages for the period when they didn’t receive any service from the dismissed workmen. But on equitable ground, they are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to each workman as compensation, for wrongful dismissal. This small amoun t will enable the workmen to recoup their health after nearly 2 decades of joble ss existence. Although reinstatement without backwages is being ordered, the int erregnum period of the service break should be taken into account for retirement benefits (if any). It is ordered accordingly. 14. With the quashing of the Award dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure-5) in the Ref erence Case No.4/2000 of the learned Labour Court, Dibruagarh, the case stands a llowed without any order on cost.