THE HONOURABLE MR v. S.Stephen Arokiaraj 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.12.2007THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARW.A.Nos.1726 of 2003 and 1611 of 2002andW.P.M.P.No.2378 of 2003W.A.No.1726/2003The Management of Srichakra Tyres Limited,10, Jawahar Road,Madurai-625 002.... Appellant /2nd Respondent.vs.1.S.Stephen Arokiaraj 25A, Subramaniapuram, First Street, Madurai-625 011.2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.... Respondents/Petitioner,1st Respondent.W.A.No.1611/2002S.Stephen Arokiaraj25A, Subramaniapuram,First Street,Madurai-625 011.... ... Appellant/PetitionerVs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai-625 002.2.The Management of Srichakra Tyres Limited, 10, Jawahar Road, Madurai-625 002.... Respondents/Respondents.Writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against theorder dated 07.11.2000 passed in W.P.No.22468 of 1993.For Appellant in: Mr.MeenakshisundaramW.A.No.1726 of 2003/2nd Respondent inW.A.No.1611 of 2002 For 1st Respondent inW.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant in: Mr.V.Prakash, SCW.A.No.1611 of 2002 for Mr.P.ChandrasekarCOMMON JUDGMENT(P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J.)These writ appeals have been filed against the order of thelearned Single Judge dated 07.11.2000 made in W.P.No.22468 of 1993.2. The first respondent in W.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant inW.A.No.1611 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the delinquentworkman) had filed the above said writ petition challenging the Awardof the Labour Court, Madurai, dated 21st April 1993 passed inI.D.No.70/1990. The said Industrial dispute had been referred to thelabour Court at the instance of the worker, the first respondent inW.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant in W.A.No.1611 of 2002, pursuant to hisdismissal from service for certain alleged misconducts. The impugnedorder of dismissal was dated 02.09.1989 and the said order had beenpassed, of course, after conducting an enquiry regarding the chargeslevelled against the worker. The charges are as follows: (1) On 27.07.1989 the first respondent in W.A.No.1726of 2003/appellant in W.A.No.1611 of 2002 (workman) took aco-worker Thiru.A.Pandiarajan from his place of work to thepower house, asked him to affix his signature on a paper andthreatened him when he refused to do so; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) he went to the work spot around 10.45 p.m. evenbefore his shift commenced on the above said date andobtained signatures from some of the workmen. The enquiry officer after enquiry held both the charges proved.The management accepted the said finding and terminated the firstrespondent in W.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant in W.A.No.1611 of 2002(workman) from service imposing a penalty of dismissal from serviceby order dated 02.09.1989 in Ref.SCT/PRSNL/Spl. 3. In the Industrial dispute raised before the labour Court,Madurai under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thelearned Presiding Officer of the Labour held that the challenge madeto the finding of the enquiry officer could not be sustained and thatthe Management had clearly proved its charges against the firstrespondent in W.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant in W.A.No.1611 of2002/delinquent workman. At the same time, the learned PresidingOfficer of the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissalfrom service was disproportionate. However, the labour Court was ofthe view that though the punishment was disproportionate, thedelinquent workman would not be entitled to reinstatement orbackwages and that it would be sufficient to award compensation. Thecompensation amount was fixed at Rs.2,500/-. 4. The said Award of the labour Court was challenged in thewrit petition. The learned Single Judge, without going into themerits of the case regarding proof of the charges, as the same wasnot challenged, concurred with the view of the labour Court that thepunishment awarded was disproportionate to the proved charges, butdisagreed with the view of the labour Court that the delinquentworkman would not be entitled to reinstatement. In line with the saidconclusion, the learned Single Judge has directed reinstatementwithout backwages but with continuity of service. The said order ofthe learned Single Judge is put in issue in these writ appeals. Asagainst the order of reinstatement, the Management has filedW.A.No.1726 of 2003. As against the denial of back wages, the workmanhas filed W.A.No.1611 of 2002. Hence both the writ appeals have beentaken up together for disposal.5. We have heard the submissions made on either side andpaid our anxious considerations to the same.6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for themanagement that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interferedwith the Award of the labour Court when the gravity of the provedmisbehaviour and proportionality of the punishment awarded wasconsidered by the labour Court; that the reasons assigned by thelabour Court for affirming the dismissal order were not adverted toby the learned Single Judge and that the learned Single Judge hascommitted an error in holding that the proved misconduct was only aminor one. The learned counsel for the management has relied on thejudgment of a Division Bench of this Court pronounced in Tractors and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Farm Equipments, Ltd. V. R.Venkataraman [1990(1)L.L.N.710], whereinit has been held as follows:“... Once the Labour Court in exercise of its powersunder S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, evaluates thegravity of misconduct for the purpose of punishment to beimposed on a workman and exercises its discretion, HighCourt exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of theConstitution of India, in the absence of any important legalprinciple should not undertake to re-examine the question ofadequacy or inadequacy of the materials for interference bythe Labour Court....” The same view was quoted with approval in a subsequent judgmentof another Division Bench of this Court in Carborandum Universal,Ltd. V. Presiding Officer reported in 1997(3) L.L.N.571. 7. The learned counsel for the delinquent workman, namelythe first respondent in W.A.No.1726 of 2003/appellant in W.A.No.1611of 2002 has argued that the order of the learned Single Judge doesnot suffer from any defect or infirmity and that the learned SingleJudge has not committed an error in holding that the provedmisconduct was only a minor one. It is the further contention of thelearned counsel for the delinquent workman that the direction forreinstatement with continuity of service is perfectly justified andon the other hand the denial of back wages alone has got to bereversed.8. There can be no second opinion that the High Courtexercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia should not undertake a re-examination of the question ofproportionality of punishment when the Labour Court has done it inexercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 in the absence of involvement of an important legalprinciple. But in the instant case, we do not think that the LabourCourt has exercised its discretion properly. Improper exercise ofdiscretion can very well be interfered with by the High Court in thewrit proceedings. Further more, we are of the considered view thatthe argument advanced on behalf of the management was based on theassumption that the Labour Court had upheld and affirmed the order ofdismissal made by the Management, where as in fact it is not so. Inclear and unambiguous terms, the Labour Court has held that thepunishment imposed was excessive and disproportionate to the gravityof the proved misconduct. The relevant observation incorporated inthe Award in vernacular language reads, kDjhuh; bra;j Fw;wj;jpw;F ntiy ePf;fj; jz;lid mjpfkhdJ“vd;whYk;... ”. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The said observation alone is enough to show that the labourCourt had expressed a clear opinion that the punishment wasdisproportionate and excessive. 9. On the other hand, after having held that the punishmentwas disproportionate and while considering the relief to which thedelinquent workman was entitled, the learned Presiding Officer seemsto have made an observation that allowing the delinquent workmanwould lead undesirable results, like altercation between workmen,untoward incidents, strikes and ultimate closure of the industry. Acursory glance at the reasons assigned by the labour Court forawarding compensation instead of reinstatement would show that thePresiding Officer has once again turned around and enumerated thereasons that are germane for upholding the punishment of dismissal.Such an approach to the problem made by the labour Court, havinginbuilt contradictions, does not deserve the approval of this Court.Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the observation made by thelearned Single Judge that in the natural course the second respondentin W.A.No.1726 of 2003/first respondent in W.A.No.1611 of 2002(Presiding Officer, Labour Court) ought to have set aside thedismissal order. The said observation was made to connote that thelabour Court, in tune with its finding that the punishment wasdisproportionate, should have set aside the dismissal order andsubstituted the same with a lesser punishment. We do not find anyinfirmity or defect in the said observation made by the learnedSingle Judge.10. It is the further contention of the learned counsel forthe management that the observation made by the learned Single Judgeholding the proved misconduct not to be major is erroneous. The actsconstituting misconduct are: (1) the delinquent workman obtained signatures ofthe other workmen in a paper against the elected unionoffice bearers; (2) he move out of his place of work for thepurpose of getting the signatures of other workmen duringduty hours; (3) he threatened a co-worker with direconsequences when he refused to affix his signature; and (4) he went to the place of work before thecommencement of his shift timing for getting the signaturesof other workmen and thereby caused hindrance to theirwork. In short, the allegation is that he was indulged in the act ofgetting the signatures of other workers during his duty time as wellas off-time and in such process he also intimidated one of the co-workers.11. It is not the case of the Management that due to thealleged intimidation, the intimidated co-worker either yielded to thepressure or that the same resulted in any altercation. There is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence to show that any one of the workman, except Pandiarajan,complained that the delinquent caused any obstruction hindrance to ordistraction of their work by his act of getting signatures. It is noteven the case of the Management that there was any shortage ofproduction or defective production on the relevant date (27.07.1989)in any one of the shifts in which the delinquent was allegedlyinvolved in the process of getting the signatures of the workers.Moreover, it is quite obvious that the Management, on coming to knowthat a signature movement had been lodged, chose to get regretletters even from the concerned workers who subscribed theirsignatures, out of their own volition without there being anyinvitation or coercion from the delinquent workman. The persons whowere instrumental for the signature movement against the electedOffice-bearers of the union were not taken to task in a similarmanner. The same will give an indication that no serious problem hadbeen created by the said signature movement. Under thesecircumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned SingleJudge has rightly observed that the proved misconduct was not majorand it was only a minor one. Therefore, the challenge made to thesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge has got to bediscountenanced. 12. Coming to the question of relief to which the delinquentis entitled, we are of the view that the order of the learned SingleJudge does not suffer from any defect or infirmity. The contention ofthe learned counsel for the management that no interference shouldhave been made with the order of the Presiding Officer, in thisregard, passed in exercise of his discretion under Section 11-A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deserves to be rejected. Thelearned Presiding Officer has simply ordered payment of a paltry sumof Rs.2,500/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement which weconsider nothing but a pittance. Therefore, the learned Single Judgeis very much justified in interfering with the Award of the labourCourt concerning the relief to be granted to the delinquent. Thelearned Single Judge has fairly disallowed back wages and directedreinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service.Therefore, the challenge made by the management in W.A.No.1726 of2003 to the order of the learned Single Judge, so far as it directsreinstatement is concerned, has got to be rejected as untenable. Atthe same time, we are also of the view that the denial of back wageswhile directing reinstatement with continuity of service shall serveas a reasonable penalty proportionate to the gravity of the provedmisconduct and that the challenge made by the delinquent workman inW.A.No.1611 of 2002 also has got to be discountenanced. The sameshall be the reason in addition to the reasons assigned by thelearned Single Judge for denying back wages. Therefore, there is noscope for interference with the order of the learned Single Judgeeither in the writ appeal filed by the management or in the writappeal filed by the delinquent workman and the same has got to beconfirmed with the result that both the writ appeals deserve to bedismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are convincedthat there is no merit in either of the writ appeals and the samedeserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.There shall be no order as to payment of costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.SMLToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Madurai.+ 1 CC To Mr. P.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR NO.75873+ 1 CC To Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate SR NO.75537W.A.Nos.1726 of 2003 and 1611 of 2002bs[co]gp/27.12.