High Court · 2012

As per the version of the workmen, they were ill-treated by the Manager which le d to widespread resentment. The local unit of Chah Mazdoor Sangha took up this m atter with various authorities, pursuant to which a meeting was arranged at 8.30 a.m. on 22-07-1998 in the office chamber of the Manager. When they assembled in the chamber, the Manager started abusing them which led to a totally unwarrante d situation as a large number of workers were present. In this regard, the Manag er had lodged a false FIR before the police against the 11 petitioners. Thereaft er the workmen were not allowed to work, which was followed by their suspension. Later, in the first week of October, 1998, they came to know that they were dis missed from service by the Management. The Management version is that on 22-07-1998 at about 9 a.m when the Man ager was attending to his official work in his chamber, the above workmen storme d into his office chamber expressing various grievances against the existing Uni on and seeking his intervention. When he expressed his inability, the workmen st arted assaulting the Manager. The assault on the Manager led the Management to i ssue charge sheets against the workmen, but in the meanwhile, the concerned work men deserted the tea estate. The Management thereafter ordered inquiry. The Inqu iry Officer submitted report holding that the charges against the workmen stood proved. Thereafter, dismissal orders were issued against the workmen on 13-09-19 98. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no proper disciplinary inquiry was conducted. The petitioners were not furnished with copies of the cha rge sheet. As the petitioners were not allowed to enter into the tea estate, the y were prevented from submitting their replies and participating in the inquiry. Therefore, it was not an inquiry in accordance with law which vitiated the dism issal orders. He has also referred to the statements made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition to submit that the case of the petitioners also went unrepresented before the Labour Court for reasons beyond their control. Learned counsel for t he petitioners submits that the petitioners were represented by the Secretary of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha, Nagaon District Unit. During the year 2003, ther e was lot of labour unrest in the tea estates in the entire State of Assam perta ining to the demand relating to payment of bonus. According to the learned couns el, the Secretary because of his pre-occupation with such matters did not devote much time to the case and, therefore, their interest remained unrepresented. He further submits that because of the failure of the counsel to appear, the workm en should not be made to suffer. He submits that given an opportunity, the petit ioners would be able to adduce evidence and effectively defend the case before t he Labour Court even at this stage. He finally submits that the present is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the Labour Court to enable the petitioner s to adduce evidence and effectively contest the case. In this connection, he ha s brought to the notice of the Court a copy of the judgment of the Criminal Cour t acquitting the petitioners. It may be mentioned that pursuant to the lodging o f the FIR by the Tea Estate Manager, G.R Case No. 2397 of 1998 under Sections 44 8/323/447/394 IPC was registered in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicia l Magistrate, Nagaon wherein all the petitioners were arrayed as accused. By the judgment and order dated 17-05-2010, the Criminal Court acquitted all the accus ed persons, including the petitioners herein, holding that the prosecution had f ailed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents submits that th ere is no error in the decision of the Labour Court as there was consistent defa ult on the part of the workmen. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that the wor kmen had their remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before publication of the award which they failed to avail. Relying on to the av erments made in the counter affidavit, he further submits that the charge again st the workmen are extremely serious and their dismissal is, therefore, fully ju stified. He submits that considering the gravity of the misconduct, the only pun ishment that would be justified for the misconduct is dismissal from service, wh ich was rightly imposed by the management and affirmed by the Labour Court. The grounds given by the petitioners for not appearing before the Labour Court canno t be accepted and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. The rival submissions have received the due consideration of the Court. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious in nature. Considering the seriousness of the charge, the Management ought to h ave ensured the participation of the workmen in the domestic inquiry. For variou s reasons, contested by both the sides, the charge-sheets were not served on the workmen. Consequently, no replies were submitted. The proceedings before the En quiry Officer also proceeded ex-parte as according to the petitioners they were not allowed to enter the tea estate whereas according to the management they wer e absconding. The enquiry report was an ex-parte one which formed the basis of t he Management decision to dismiss the workmen from service. As has already been noticed above, the case of the workmen was represented by the Secretary of the N agaon branch of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha. He had failed to take effective s teps for defending the interest of the workmen in the proceedings before the Lab our Court. So also there was default on the part of the counsel. Therefore, considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if the workmen are given one mo re chance to defend their case effectively before the Labour Court. It need no reiteration that the battle between the Management and the workmen is an uneven one and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been enacted to rectify the situat ion and for the maintenance of industrial peace. It is true that sufficient time has elapsed in the matter but in the opinion of the Court, as long as the indus trial dispute exist, the dispute should be gone into and adjudicated by the Labo ur Court. It may not be out of place to observe that the case was pending before the Labour Court from 1999 to 2003 and before this Court from 2004 onwards. For all the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 03-09-2003 passed in Refe rence Case No. 38 of 1999 is set aside. The matter stands remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in the matter. The matter will now proceed from the stage of cross-examination of the Management Witness Nos. 2 and 3 and adducing o f evidence on behalf of the workmen. If the circumstances so warrant, the Manage ment would be at liberty to adduce further evidence. Considering the fact that the reference case is of the year 1999, the La bour Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.