BINNY LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the Management of Binny Limited has prayed for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the second respondent into service with effect from 30th June, 1977, with continuity of service and full back-wages and other consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The 2nd respondent was a workman in the service of the petitioner. On 21st June, 1977, he was arrested by the Police on a charge under S. 120(b) read with Ss. 489(a) and (b) of the I.P.C. and as a result, he could not attend to his duties on and after 21st June, 1977. Thereafter, he was continuously in judicial custody. The 2nd respondent however, informed the petitioner through his counsel that as he had been in judicial custody, he was unable to attend to his duties. He was released on bail on 14th July, 1977. Immediately thereafter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him of the fact of his release on bail and requesting the petitioner to take him back to duty. The petitioner, however, did not accede to the request of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had been charge-sheeted along with 9 others. by judgment dated 24th April, 1978, of the Session Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, while all the other accused were convicted, the 2nd respondent was honorably acquitted. There was no appeal against the acquittal and the said judgment became final. Immediately thereafter, he addressed a letter dated 27th April, 1978, to the petitioner informing of his acquittal and requesting it to take him back to duty. The petitioner by its letter dated 8th May, 1978, rejected the request of the 2nd respondent. The letter (Ex. M filed before the Labour Court) reads thus : "We refer to your letter dated 30 April, 1978. You were deemed to have left the company's service due to absence for 8 consecutive working days from the second session on 21st June, 1977 to the first session on 30th June, 1977 and your averment that you were informed that you were under suspension till the disposal of the case is not correct. Your explanation that you were arrested by the Police on a mere suspicion on 21st June, 1977 for the alleged conspiracy in counterfeiting 100 rupee notes, that you were released of bail in the 2nd week of December, 1977 and that you have been acquitted on 24th April, 1978, is not a satisfactory explanation for your absence. We therefore, regret we are unable to reinstate you into the service of the Company." Thereafter, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for industrial adjudication by the Government under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short), to the Labour Court, Bangalore. Before the Labour Court, the stand taken by the petitioner was that in view of Standing Order 8 of the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner-company, the services of the 2nd respondent stood terminated with effect from 30th June, 1977, by operation of law and not by the act of the employee and, therefore, it was not retrenchment within the meaning of the expression under S. 2(oo) of the Act. The alternative stand of the petitioner was that the petitioner was not convinced of the sufficiency of the reason given by the respondent for his absence. The Labour Court rejected both the pleas of the petitioner, and made the award in favour of the 2nd respondent. The operative portion of the award reads thus : "The management having not established that they had justification in removing the workmen from their services with effect from 30th June, 1977, he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service full back-wages and other consequential benefits. He is also entitled to costs of Rs. 100." Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has presented this petition. The plead of the petitioner is as follows : (i) According to Standing Order 8 of the Certified Standing Orders, the services of any employee who remains absent consecutively for a period of 8 days stands automatically terminated. Services of the 2nd respondent stood terminated by operation of Standing Order 8. Therefore, no question as to whether the petitioner was justified in terminating the services of the 2nd respondent arose for consideration. On this ground, the reference itself was misconceived and invalid. Further, when the 2nd respondent was physically prevented from attending to his duties on and after 30th June, 1977, because he was in judicial custody, the Labour Court was not justified in making the award to the effect that the 2nd respondent should be reinstated with effect from 30th June, 1977 and was entitled to full salary even for the period during which he was in judicial custody. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was also justified that the application may by the 2nd respondent for reinstatement in terms of the 2nd part of the Standing Order 8 should not be granted for the reason that the management could not be expected to wait for the outcome of the prosecution against respondent No. 2. The decision of the petitioner was based on the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no justification for the Labour Court to interfere.

(3.) In support of the contention that the termination of service of the 2nd respondent with effect from 30th June, 1977 would not amount to retrenchment with in the meaning of that expression, as defined in S. 2(oo) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Buckingham & Carnatic Company v. Venkatayya, [1963-II L.L.J. 638]; and National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Hanuman, [1967-II L.L.J. 883].