Management of LUK India Private Ltd.(Formerly known as Rane Luk Clutch Limited) v. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem... 1st

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 11-06-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANWRIT PETITION Nos.12894,13001,13002,13003,29846,32551,32552 & 32553 OF 2003W.P.No.12894 OF 2003 and WP NO. 29846/03:The Management of LUK India Private Ltd.(Formerly known as Rane Luk Clutch Limited),20, Rayakotai Road,Hosur – 635 109,Dharmapuri District,rep.by its Dy.General Manager-Finance &Secretary....Petitioner in WP NO. 12894/03 and 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 29846/03-vs-1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem... 1st Respondent in WP NO. 12894/03 and 29846/032.K.Baskaran3.K.Sambangiraman...Respondents in 2 and 3 in WP NO. 12894/03 and Petitioners 1 and 2 in WP NO. 29846/03WP NO. 13001/03 TO 13003 AND 32551 TO 32553/03THE MANAGEMENT OFLUK INDIA PVT.LTD. (Formerly known as RANE LUK CLUTCH LIMITED)NO. 20 Royakottai Road,Dharmapuri District REP.BY ITS DY.GENERAL MANAGER and Secretary.. Petitioners in WP NO. 13001 to 13003/03 and 2nd Respondentin WP Nos. 32551 to 32553/03 respectively https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Salem .. 1st Respondent in WP Nos. 13001 to 13005/03 and WP NO. 32551 to 32553/03J. Poosakkaran.. 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 13001/03and Petitioner in WP NO. 32551/03B. Sirarajan.. 2nd Respondent in WP NO 13002/03 and Petitioner in WPN O. 32552/03P. Seeniraj.. 2nd Respondent in WP NO. 3003/03 and Petitioner in WP NO. 32553/03 respectivelyprayer: To issue a writ of Certiorarified calling for the recordsof the 1st Respondent in ID NO. 158/99 and 159/99, ID 156/99,10/99, 157/99 and quash the common award dated 08.01.2003respectivelyFor petitioners in W.P.Nos.12894, 13001 to 13003/2003 &respondent 2 in W.P.Nos.29846 & 32551 to 32553/2003 : Mr.V.Karthic,for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For petitioners in W.P.Nos.29846 and 32551 to 32553/2003 & respondents 2 & 3 in W.P.No.12894/2003 & respondent 2 in W.P.Nos.13001 to 13003/2003: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, for M/s.Row & Reddy.COMMON ORDERSince the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions isidentical, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by acommon order. 2. While in Writ Petition Nos.12894 and 13001 to 13003 of2003 the petitioner/management has sought for quashing of theaward of the Labour Court in toto, in the rest of the WritPetitions, the petitioners/workmen have sought for quashing of theaward in so far as it relates to the denial of back wages.3. For the sake of convenience, let us take Writ PetitionNo.29846 of 2003. The petitioners were appointed as Operators inthe second respondent management and, thereafter, they were made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permanent. While so, on 30.07.1997, the respondent managementissued a Charge Sheet to the petitioners, alleging that they,along with a group of employees, under the leadership ofSivarajan, demanded an audience with the President of the Companyand threatened that they would enter his room, if deniedpermission, and prevented production, by stopping the machines.The petitioners submitted an explanation, dated 06.08.1997,denying the said allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation,the management ordered domestic enquiry. After going through thematerials, the enquiry officer found that the charges levelledagainst the petitioners were proved beyond doubt. On the basis ofthe said findings of the enquiry officer, the management dismissedthe petitioners from service on 06.10.1998. Aggrieved over thesame, the petitioners approached the Labour Court.4. The case of the second respondent/management before theLabour Court was that the activities of the petitioners wouldamount to serious misconduct under the Standing Orders of theCompany and, considering the nature and gravity of the charges,they were dismissed from service, after giving due opportunity,and, therefore, the dismissal of the petitioners was proper andthat they were not entitled for reinstatement and back wages and,as such, the petitions were liable to be dismissed.5. The Labour Court, after analysing the materialsavailable before it, set aside the punishment of dismissal andordered reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity ofservice and other benefits, but without back wages. 6. Not satisfied with and aggrieved over the said award ofthe Labour Court, the workmen and the management have approachedthis Court, by way of these Writ Petitions.7. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for thepetitioners/workmen, would contend that the petitioners are notresponsible for the misconducts, alleged to have been committed bythem, and, since more than 20 workers accompanied the petitioners,action was taken against the petitioners alone and the otherworkers were let off without any action; the differential actionis illegal and, therefore, the petitioners were subjected tovictimisation.8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for theworkmen relies on the following judgments :(i)1993 (1) L.L.N.777 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Madras. v. Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, andanother) ; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)1997 (3) L.L.N.550 (M.Rajamanickam v. Bharat HeavyElectricals Ltd.) ;(iii)1983 (2) L.L.J.232 (Workmen, E.V.L. v. Engine ValvesLtd.) ;(iv)1984 (1) L.L.J.161 (Sengara Singh and others v. Stateof Punjab and others) ; (v)1984 (2) Supreme Court Cases 569 (Ved Prakash Gupta v.Delton Cable India (P) Ltd.) ;(vi)2001 (3) L.L.N.269 (P.D.D.P.T.Munnettra Sangam v.Management of Pioneer Mills Ltd.) ;(vii)2002 (1) L.L.N.1116 (Shamsher Singh v. Pepsu RoadTransport Corporation, Patiala, and another) ;(viii)2004 (8) Supreme Court Cases 222 (Nicks (India)Tools v. Ram Surat and another) ;(ix)2006 (1) Supreme Court Cases 368 (Union of India andanother v. Major Bahadur Singh) and(x)2006 (3) CTC 391 (K.Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar ofCo-operative Societies, Namakkal). 9. On the other hand, Mr.V.Karthic, learned counsel forthe respondent/management, would contend that using an abusivelanguage against the superior officer and preventing the fellowworkmen from attending work is a grave misconduct; the managementis entitled to impose any kind of punishment on the employees,when the employees affect the movements of goods and persons; moreparticularly, the petitioners have not challenged the validity ofthe domestic enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer and,hence, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannotbe interfered with.10. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel forthe management relies on the following decisions :(i)Vol.91 F.J.R.577 (V.Venugopal v. Reed Relays andElectronics Ltd.);(ii)1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases 13 (The Workmen of theMotor Industries Co.Ltd. v. The Management of the MotorIndustries Co.Ltd., Bangalore) ; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)2000 (1) L.L.J.424 (Mahendra Nissan Allwyin Ltd. v.M.P.Siddappa and Another) ;(iv)2002 (2) L.L.N.407 (R.Aruchamy v. General Manager, SriSarada Mill and Another) ;(v)2003 (III) L.L.N.930 (Management of Sundaram IndustriesLtd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another) ;(vi)2005 (I) L.L.J.1129 (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v.N.B.Naravade);(vii)2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 331 (Muriadih Collieryv. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union) ;(viii)2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 401 (M.P.ElectricityBoard v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma) ;(ix)2006 (1) Supreme Court Cases 430 (Hombe GowdaEducational Trust and another v. State of Karnataka andothers);(x)2006 (4) L.L.N.800 (Uttar Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Dehradun, v. Suresh Pal) ;(xi)2006 (4) L.L.N.890 (Sahil Khan v. Hashmat and Company)and(xii)2007 (1) Supreme Court Cases 222 (A.P.S.R.T.C. v.Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad) .11. At this juncture, the sole question, which arises forconsideration is, whether the punishment imposed by the managementon the workmen is proportionate ?12. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to adecision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton CableIndia (P) Ltd., 1984 (2) Supreme Court Cases 569, wherein it washeld as follows :"13. ....The Charge levelled against theappellant is not a serious one and it is notknown how the charge even if proved would resultin any much less total loss of confidence of themanagement in the appellant as the managementwould have it in the charge. It was argued inthe Labour Court that there was no previous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adverse remark against the appellant. There isnothing on record to show that any previousadverse remark against the appellant had beentaken into consideration by the management forawarding the extreme penalty of dismissal fromservice to the appellant even if he had abusedin filthy language Durg Singh and S.K.Bagga. Weare therefore of the opinion that the punishmentawarded to the appellant is shockinglydisproportionate regard being had to the chargeframed against him. We are also of the opinionthat no responsible employer would ever imposein like circumstances the punishment ofdismissal on the employee and that victimizationor unfair labour practice could well be inferredfrom the conduct of the management in awardingthe extreme punishment of dismissal for aflimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officerof the management by the appellant within thepremises of the factory. We therefore hold thatthe termination of the appellant's service isinvalid and unsustainable in law and that he isentitled to reinstatement with full back wagesand other benefits including continuity ofservice...." 13. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel forthe workmen in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madras. v. SecondAdditional Labour Court, Madras, and another, 1993 (1) L.L.N.777,it was held by a Division Bench of this Court as follows :"....when the evidence with regard tothe misconduct of number of workmen isidentical, the employer must give rational orreasonable explanation for awardingdifferential punishment to the differentworkmen on the same evidence. In other words,if different workmen are similarly placed withregard to the nature of evidence let in againstthem by the management in the domestic enquiryand if the workmen are covered by the same setof facts and circumstances, the employer cannotsingle out a particular workman for thediscriminatory treatment while awardingpunishment. If some workers are arbitrarilyweeded out for discriminatory and more severetreatment than those who were similarlysituated, the Courts will not hesitate to frownupon such discriminatory treatment....." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ That was a case, where both driver and helper of an oil tankerwere charged with same offences; statement of facts and evidencelet in before the enquiry committee were common to both, but whilethe petitioner, namely, helper was dismissed from service, driverwas awarded lesser punishment of withholding of three increments.Under those circumstances, it was held that the differentialtreatment meted out to the petitioner, namely, helper, vis-a-visthe driver was not legal. However, that is not the case here. Inthe present case, all the workmen, who are charged, are awardedequal punishment. Therefore, the above decision is of no help tothe workmen.14. Admittedly, the workmen have not challenged thevalidity of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the enquiryofficer. Though several workers accompanied the petitioners, thepetitioners alone were chargesheeted and they were thrown outfrom service. Awarding of punishment is purely a question of factand it depends upon the discretion of the disciplinary authority.Each case should be decided on its own facts and circumstances.Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the LabourCourt has power to set aside or modify the punishment, when thepunishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not justified.It is true that the employer is entitled to impose a majorpunishment, but it should be proportionate to the charges framed. 15. Considering the nature of charges, the Labour Courthas held that the punishment of dismissal imposed by themanagement on the workmen is disproportionate and, consequently,ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and otherbenefits, which, in my view, cannot be said to be perverse, inview of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Gupta v.Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., referred to above. Therefore, I donot find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, on that score. 16. However, as regards the finding with regard to back wages, Isee some reason to interfere with the award. Considering the factthat the workmen have put in ten years of service and they havelost a further service of ten years during the pendency of theproceedings and still they have service for ten more yearspursuant to reinstatement, I direct the management to pay 50 %of the back wages, due to the workmen, within a period of twomonths from today. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In the result, Writ Petition Nos.29846 and 32551 to32553 of 2003, filed by the workmen, are allowed in part and WritPetition Nos.12894 and 13001 to 13003 of 2003, filed by themanagement, are dismissed. No costs. dixitSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Salem.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High CourtMadras+2ccs to M/s. Row and Reddy Advocate sr no. 34123, 34124+2ccs to M/s. T.S. Gopal and Co Advocate sr no. 33537MBS(cO)NM(20.06.07) W.P.Nos.12894,13001,13002, 13003,29846,32551,32552 & 32553 OF 2003