Management of Usha Martin Limited, a company v. Dharmendra Kumar

3. Chronology of Evidence and Background Facts (i) During the Covid-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown was imposed. However, to ensure industrial productivity, the Government of India relaxed restrictions for industries and permitted operations to resume from 20/04/2020. The Management issued a letter dated 09/06/2020, by registered post, to the respondent, Dharmendra Kumar, requiring his explanation continued absence from duties even after 20/04/2020, without prior intimation or permission from his superiors. The petitioner refers to a general notice circulated on 17/04/2020, followed another notice 05/07/2020, requesting all employees and workers to report contact department heads/supervisors. (ii) The respondent submitted his reply dated 14/06/2020, denying the Management’s allegations. He blamed the Management for not contacting him personally or informing him about his rotation duty and shift, and alleged that the show cause notice was a conspiracy against him. (iii) On 18/06/2020, it is alleged that the respondent 2 was present at Factory Gate No. 3 at around 12:00 PM and raised slogans: “Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.” The Management issued a charge sheet-cum-suspension letter on 19/06/2020 for major misconduct under Clause 23.2.2 of the certified standing orders of M/s Usha Martin Limited, which includes “riotous or disorderly behavior, threatening, intimidating, coercing other employees, assault or threat of assault… affecting company’s discipline.” (iv) The respondent was asked to submit a written explanation to this charge sheet-cum-suspension letter within 72 hours. Dissatisfied with the explanation provided, the Management constituted a domestic enquiry, in which the workmen participated. The Management examined three witnesses in support of the charges i.e., Shyam Bahadur Gole, Jaswant Pradhan, and Ravindra Singh. (v) Shyam Bahadur Gole, the security guard, recorded that the workman raised slogans and abused the Management at the factory gate, and he reported the incident to his in-charge, Jaswant Pradhan, by telephone. The other witnesses corroborated the security guard’s account. (vi) The enquiry report submitted on 02/04/2021 found Dharmendra Kumar guilty of unauthorized absence 3 and disorderly conduct. (vii) On 06/05/2021, the Petitioner - Management issued an order of punishment, dismissing the workman from service. With cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Ranchi, the order noted that an application was being filed before the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the approval application was not considered by the Tribunal, which remained vacant for over four years without any Presiding Officer. (viii) The workman, seeing no prospect of an expeditious decision, raised a fresh industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government issued Notification No. 1225 dated 22/10/2021, referring the following dispute under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 10(2A): the dismissal of workman Mr. “Whether Dharmendra Kumar from services by Management M/s Usha Martin & Industries Limited, Tatisilway, Ranchi is justified? If not, then what relief is he entitled to?”

4. The reference case was registered as Reference No. 6 of 2021. The Management filed a petition not to proceed, citing its prior approval application before the Tribunal. The workman had also filed Misc. Case No. 1/2021 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner’s objection 4 maintainability was rejected on 06/06/2022 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi. This rejection was challenged in W.P.(L) No. 3043 of 2022, which was also dismissed on 14/05/2024. Consequently, the trial in Reference Case 6/2021 proceeded, with both parties submitting written statements.

5. The workman, in his written statement, claimed to have worked since 1995 and alleged that in 2016 he was assaulted inside the factory premises at the instance of the Management. He denied being informed about resumption of work from 20/04/2020. He stated that he contacted his supervisor, Dhiraj Kumar, but was verbally informed that his machine was not functional and he would be informed when it became operational. He claimed to have submitted a written application dated 19/05/2020, but received no acknowledgment, and sent a reminder on 10/06/2020, again without acknowledgment. Regarding the charge of disorderly behavior and shouting slogans, he requested CCTV footage, which was not provided, and asserted that the allegations were false. He also stated that he goes to the factory gate daily for eight hours and returns without work.

6. The Management, in its written statement, contended that Dharmendra Kumar is an Office Bearer of the Trade 5 Union and closely associated with an outsider politician. Despite notices posted on the factory premises, the workman did not join duty, prompting the show cause notice dated 09/06/2020. The Management alleged that angered and infuriated by the notice, the Respondent raised anti-management slogans and used abusive language, leading to the enquiry and finding of guilt. The Management asserted there was no violation of natural justice and the punishment was proportionate and justified.

7. Evidence Before Labour Court: The Management supported the charges and requested that the validity and propriety of the enquiry be tried as a preliminary issue. The Presiding Officer called for evidence of the Management on the point of validity of enquiry. By order dated 14/09/2023 in Reference Case 6/2021, the Labour Court found that the enquiry officer had not permitted examination of workmen witnesses on the ground that they were outsiders, rendering the domestic enquiry unfair and unjustified. However, the Management was allowed to prove the charges directly before the Labour Court.

8. The Management examined five witnesses: 6 from 20/04/2020 Birendra Kumar Singh i. Ravindra Singh (MW-1): Assistant Officer, time office. Testified about the workman’s unauthorized absence to 18/06/2020. His testimony was limited to the charge of absence. ii. Dhiraj Kumar (MW-2): Shift supervisor. He stated that Dharmendra Kumar never applied to rejoin duty and that other workers had resumed work. He described the workman’s aggressive reply to the show cause notice and denied a false case had been set up due to union activity. iii. (MW-3): Production Manager. He testified about the absence of Dharmendra Kumar and recounted an aggressive and violent response from the workman on 18/06/2020. He has however, admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident at the gate. iv. Shyam Bahadur Gole (MW-4): Security Guard. He is a key witness for disorderly misconduct. He clearly stated that on 18/06/2020, at around 12:00 PM, Dharmendra Kumar shouted slogans at Factory Gate No. 3. In cross-examination, explained he was the only guard present and there was no CCTV at Gate No. 3. In paragraph no. 04 of his examination-in-chief he testifies that he personally heard the Respondent, workman shout slogan “Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.”. There is no cross examination on the sloganeering charge by the Respondent’s Representative. v. (MW-5): Shift Supervisor Security. This witness also confirmed that Shyam Bahadur Gole informed him by phone about the incident, and he arrived at the scene to see Dharmendra Kumar leaving. He reiterated the slogans and abusive language used. He however, admitted that he did not report the incident to the police and clarified that there was no CCTV with voice recording at Gate No. 3. Jaswant Pradhan

9. The Respondent, Dharmendra Kumar, was also examined as MW-1 in this case. He stated that he had worked satisfactorily with an unblemished record, goes 7 daily to the factory gate, and is not employed elsewhere. He admitted being appointed under a scheme for next of kin of employees and being the President of the union since 2014.

10. Two additional witnesses for the workman, Dhanram Bhutkumar and Anjani Kumar Pandey, testified only to seeing Dharmendra Kumar at the factory gate post- dismissal.

11. The Management produced eight documents, including the security guard’s written complaint about the incident. The respondent, though he examined three witnesses but did not produce any documents.

12. The Award: The Tribunal passed its Award on 29/04/2025 in Reference Case 6/2021, framing four issues:- (a) Unauthorized absence; (b) Disorderly conduct; (c) Quantum of punishment; (d) Reliefs. After examining the records and evidence, the Tribunal held that the Management failed to prove both unauthorized absence and disorderly conduct and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity in service.

13. Arguments of the Management: 8 The Petitioner - Management referred to the Award, focusing on findings related to unauthorized absence and disorderly conduct. It argued the respondent workman was given a proper show cause notice and could have resumed duty, but instead submitted an aggressive reply, indicating no intent to return. Subsequently, on 18/06/2020, the Respondent shouted slogans and used abusive language at Factory Gate No. 3. The Management contended that the finding in the Award was perverse, failing to acknowledge clear evidence, particularly from MW-4, Shyam Bahadur Gole, who testified to the use of abusive language during the incident.

14. The Management contended that it had proved the charges both in the enquiry and before the Court. In support of his contention on the standard of proof, admissibility of evidence, gravity of misconduct, and judicial review for perverse findings it relied on following decisions:- J.D Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India2, (a) Management of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs. M. Mani1, (b) (c) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. N.B Narawade3, Atlas Cycle Haryana Limited vs. Kitab Singh4. (d)

15. Argument of the Workmen: