H VENKATESHA, S/O LATE H BHANUVANTHA RAO AND ORS Vs. FESTO CONTROLS PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO 237-B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR HIGHWAY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 23187/2011 is preferred by the workman calling In question the award dated 18.9.2010 in I.D. No. 93/2005 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, insofar as it relates to denial of back wages. W.P. No. 23184/2011 is preferred by the workman calling in question the award dated 18.9.2010 in I.D. No. 95/2005 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore insofar as it relates to denial of back wages. W.P. No. 39967/2010 is filed by the management calling in question the award dated 18.9.2010 in I.D. No. 93/2005 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore directing reinstatement'' with continuity of service and consequential benefits. W.P. No. 39968/2010 is filed by the management, calling in question the award dated 18.0.2010 in I.D. No. 95/2005 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore directing reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

(3.) Facts common in the petitions are: the workmen when appointed as a workmen, Grade-I, were transferred to discharge duties at M/s 5 M Automats, No. 440/1, Doddamma Layout, Hulimavu Village, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-76 and M/s A.G. Industries, 1 & 2, 1st Cross, Siddapura, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-27, respectively. While discharging duties at the place of transfer, the workmen addressed letter dated 19.7.2004 stating that the place of transfer i.e.. M/s 5 M Automats and M/s A.G. Industries were not branches of the Management and the transfers were violative of the standing orders, despite which they obeyed the orders. The workmen alleged that third parties were pressurizing them to honorably accede or resign, by accepting a decent package, and therefore, the request to be brought back to the original place of work and that the Managing Director could fairly negotiate directly with them and not through third parties. This letter was taken offensive by the Management, who felt that the statements in the letter were baseless, malicious, frivolous and damaged the image of the Company and therefore, called upon the workmen to submit their explanations by letter dated 29.7.2004, Which was acknowledged by the workmen on 31.7.2004. Explanations were offered by the workmen, without disclosing the name of the third parties, when not found convincing, the Management by letter dated 12.8.2004 directed them to show cause as to why action in accordance with law should not be initiated, to which the workmen submitted a reply dated 16.8.2004. The Disciplinary Authority not. being satisfied with the explanation, appointed an Enquiry Authority to hold a domestic enquiry into the charges and after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the workmen, in the separate domestic enquiry proceeding, returned findings holding the charges proved. The opportunity extended by the Management to show cause, over the Enquiry Authority's report, led to a reply dated 12.10.2004. The Disciplinary Authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances, and the material on record, held the workmen guilty of the charges and having lost confidence in the workmen, by orders of even date 16.5.2005, dismissed the workmen from service.