MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal special leave was limited to the question whether relief by way of payment of compensation should not be substituted for the relief by way of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court to the workman, H. P. Bhagavati, Store Clerk.

(2.) The Panitole Tea Estate belongs to the Jokai (Assam) Tea Co., Ltd., Panitole, Depot Line was one of the Out Garden under this Tea Estate and it had a separate godown. One B. K. Borgohain, a part-time clerk was in charge of this godown. Ammonia sulphate fertiliser was stored in this godown, 970 bags having been received there between December 12, 1960 and January 5, 1961. Pursuant to receipt of an anonymous letter that there was pilferage of these bags the stock was checked and 89 bags were found missing. In the course of the domestic enquiry against Borgohain a chit (Ex. 12) was produced by him which suggested N. P. Bhagavati's collusion with Borgohain in this affair. Bhagavati was accordingly also chargesheeted and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed with effect from March 23, 1961. This order of dismissal of Bhagavati gave rise to an industrial dispute which was duly referred to the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh. The Labour Court by its award dated October 30, 1969 held that the contents of Ex. 12 were too vague to connect Bhagavati with the offence charged. According to the Labour Court the management had procured this exhibit only to harass Bhagavati for no fault of his. The domestic enquiry was also found to be violative of the principle of natural justice and its conclusions perverse, there being no evidence to support them. Bhagavati was accordingly held entitled to reinstatement with all the back wages and benefits. The present appeal is directed against this order and, as observed earlier, the only question we have to decide is whether Bhagavati should be reinstated or he should be paid compensation instead of reinstatement. The dismissal of Borgohain, it may be pointed out, was not challenged by him and that order became final. In this appeal we are not concerned with his dismissal.

(3.) On appeal in this Court Shri Chagla has submitted that the management has lost confidence in Bhagavati and it would be unjust and improper to force his reinstatement as a store clerk on the management after a lapse of ten years. The learned counsel offered to pay to the workman any reasonable compensation as may be ordered by this Court. Reliance in support of this submission against the order of reinstatement was placed on two recent decisions of this Court Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chopra (1970) 1 Lab LJ 63 (SC) and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. A. K. Roy, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 228 .