R. Santhanam v. Madura Coats Ltd.,Tuticorin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 05.01.2007 Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWrit Appeal No.432 of 2003R. Santhanam... Appellantvs.1. Madura Coats Ltd.,Tuticorin, rep. by its IndustrialRelations Manager.2. The Presiding Officer,Additional Labour Court,Madurai.... RespondentsAppeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order ofthis Court, dated 21.01.2000, made in W.P. No.9006 of 1992 prayingunder Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records connected wih I.D.No.282 of 1989on the file of the Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour Court, Madurai andquash the Award dt. 6.3.92 in so far as relief to the workman inconcerned.For Appellant: Mr.N.G.R.Prasadfor M/s.Row & Reddy.For Respondent-1: Mr.Kumaresan,for M/s.RamasubramaniamAssociates.(Judgment of the Court, delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)The above Appeal is directed against the order of thelearned single Judge, dated 21.01.2000, made in W.P. No.9006 of 1992,in and by which, the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed bythe Management.2. The workman/appellant herein, viz., R.Santhanam, wasemployed as a Junior Electrician in the Electrical Department of thefirst respondent / Madura Coats Limited, Tuticorin. According to theManagement, on 12.02.1988, he was directed by his superior to rectify https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the electrical defects in three Hoists. Each one of the hoists hasmore than one door lock switch. If the door look switches are not intheir places, the doors of the hoists will not get locked but wouldremain opened and if the hoist is operated in such a condition,accidents are likely to happen. According to the Management, it isthe duty of the Mechanic Shop Fitter to remove the door locks in casethere is any mechanical defect. The workman is in no way connectedwith the door lock switches. Further, whoever removes the door lockswitches in the hoists, he should display a warning sign board in thehoists. The workman was instructed by the the Junior Engineer of theElectrical Section to attend to the electrical defects in those threehoists and if necessary to get the assistance from the Mechanic ShopFitter. According to the Management, the workman, instead of gettingthe assistance of the Mechanical Shop Fitter for removing the doorlock switches, had himself removed the same. When it was noticed andhe was asked to re-fix the door lock switches back in the hoists, theworkman refused to carry out the job. The act of the workman,according to the Management, constituted a serious act of misconduct,hence, a show cause notice dated 12.02.1988 was issued. The workmansubmitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the same, enquiry wasconducted. Finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on29.06.1988 holding that the charges levelled against the workman areproved. The Management accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officerand issued a second show cause notice, dated 15.07.1988, requiringthe workman to submit his explanation for the proposed punishment.He submitted his explanation on 21.07.1988 and 24.08.1988. As theexplanation was not satisfactory, by order dated 05.09.1988, theworkman was dismissed with effect from 05.09.1988. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the workman raisedan industrial dispute in I.D. No.282 of 1989 on the file of theAdditional Labour Court, Madurai. No oral evidence was let in on theside of the workman and the Management, however, documents M1 to M52were marked on the side of the Management. The Labour Court, afteranalysing the materials, concluded that the enquiry was fair andproper, however, after finding that the Workman had renderedunblemished service for 12 years, by concluding that the punishmentof dismissal is disproportionate to the charges against the workman,modified the same by ordering reinstatement without backwages. Notsatisfied with the reduction of punishment, the Management filed W.P.No.9006 of 1992. The learned single Judge, accepting the case of theManagement, quashed the award of the labour court in modifying thepunishment, hence, the present Writ Appeal by the workman. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-workman as wellas the first respondent-Management.5. In view of the fact that the Writ Petition and the WritAppeal relate to the only aspect viz., modification made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Labour Court in the punishment imposed by the Management, there is noneed to traverse into the factual details as stated in the affidavit.We have already stated that the Labour Court, after considering therelevant materials, concluded that the enquiry was fair and proper.After holding so, taking note of the fact that the workman had put inunblemished service for a period of 12 years with the Management andfinding that the dismissal is unwarranted, the Labour Court orderedfor reinstatement, making it clear that the workman would not beentitled to the entire backwages from the date of dismissal till thedate of reinstatement. 6. Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for theappellant/workman, submitted that, in view of the Standing Orders, itis the duty of the Management, while awarding punishment, to considerthe gravity of the misconduct as well as the past service record ofthe workman. According to him, since the Management did not considerthe same; and the Labour Court, after adverting to the Standing Orderand the long service (12 years) put in by the workman without anycomplaint or enquiry, properly exercised its discretion and modifiedthe punishment; in the absence of any contra material, the learnedJudge is not justified in setting aside the same. He also contendedthat the learned Judge has not at all discussed and adverted to theStanding Order before accepting the case of the Management. 7. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court is clothedwith the powers to reappraise the evidence and come to a differentconclusion and that, in appropriate cases, the Labour Court canimpose a lesser punishment even if the domestic enquiry is held to beproper. The charge against the workman was one of insubordination.It was charged that he removed the door lock switches in the hoists,did not display warning sign boards and refused to re-fix the lockswitches when instructed. The workman has highlighted that thecharge sheet dated 12.02.1988 was served on him and thereafter acomplaint, dated 13.02.1988, from the Junior Engineer was obtained.Not satisfied with the explanation, domestic enquiry was conductedand, based on the Enquiry Officer's Report, he was removed fromservice with effect from 05.09.1988. By Award dated 06.03.1992, theLabour Court, after examining the enquiry proceedings and taking noteof the 12 years of unblemished service put in by the workman and alsonon-consideration of the past service record of the workman by theManagement, reduced the punishment of dismissal to that ofreinstatement however without backwages. As rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Judgeunfortunately reappraised the evidence and came to a differentconclusion and proceeded as if an appellate court/authority. In fact,the learned Judge has not considered either sub clause-5 of Clause-21of Certified Standing Orders or past record of service. Sub-clause-5of Clause-21 of Certified Standing Orders mandates that it is theduty of the Management while imposing punishment to consider gravity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the misconduct as well as his past record of service. As rightlypointed out by the learned counsel for the workman, the Managementignored the said clause while imposing the punishment and the samewas rightly considered by the Labour Court. Learned counselappearing for the Management heavily relied on a judgment of theSupreme Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC 430 (Hombe Gowda EducationalTrust vs. State of Karnataka) and contended that the Labour Court isnot justified in interfering with the award of punishment in a caseof 'proved misconduct'. We verified the Judgment of the SupremeCourt and it relates to the conduct of a workman in an EducationalInstitution. In our humble view, the said Judgment cannot bestrictly made applicable to the case on hand in view of the factualaspects adverted to by us. We are conscious of the fact thatinterference by the Labour Court as well as this Court with the awardof punishment is very limited. However, it is not in dispute thatSection 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act had advisedly left a widediscretion in the Labour Court or the Tribunal. While consideringthe relief, the Labour Court has to take into account variousmitigating circumstances. In the case on hand, the Labour Courtrecorded a finding that, in the totality of circumstances, thecharges proved do not warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal,and exercised the discretion properly and judiciously after takingnote of all such relevant factors into consideration as are requiredby law. It also took note of the fact that the workman had put inunblemished service for a long period of 12 years and ultimatelymodified the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement withoutbackwages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. In ouropinion, in view of sub-clause(5) of Clause-21 of Certified StandingOrders, which was ignored by the Management, and considering 12 yearsof unblemished service of the workman, there is no error on the partof the Labour Court in modifying the punishment. We are satisfiedthat the Labour Court, only after taking the relevant facts and themitigating circumstances of the case into consideration, reduced thepunishment to that of reinstatement without backwages instead ofdismissal. We are satisfied that there was no error apparent on theface of the Award or the proceedings of the Labour Court warrantingany interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the learnedsingle Judge. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the learnedJudge and, in our considered opinion, the award of the Labour Courtdoes not merit any interference at all. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Consequently, the order of the learned Judge, dated21.01.2000, made in W.P. No.9006 of 1992, is set aside. Writ Appealis allowed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarJI.To1.The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court,Madurai.2.The Record Keeper,VR Section, High Court, Madras.+1cc to M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocate Sr 1236+1cc to M/s. Ramasubramaniam & Associates SR 1750GB (CO)km/23.1.W.A.No.432 of 2003