SUPERINTENDENT ERUMELI ESTATE Vs. LABOUR COURT QUILON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the Superintendent of the Travancore Rubbers Ltd., and his employer had newly constructed a cooly line consisting of seven rooms. Before the construction had been completed, seven of the coolies employed by the Estate entered and each occupied a room. This happened on the night of December 27, 1956, and at the same time two other workers unauthorisedly occupied what had been till then filled by two out of the seven employees who had without permission occupied the new rooms. The writ petitioners case is that they did it without permission, that the unauthorised conduct resulted in hindering the construction, that next morning the petitioner asked them to vacate, that only one obeyed by vacating the new room he had occupied, and that the others failed notwithstanding repeated demands by the petitioner on December 28, 29 and 30, 1956. The next part of the petitioners case is that thereafter notices were served individually on the workers to attend an enquiry to be held at 10 A.M. on January 1, 1957, that these notices stated the workers being liable to dismissal, should the misconduct be proved and that the workers refused to vacate, did not attend the enquiry and were dismissed. The writ petitioner also avers that the eight workers left only after the police came on the spot on a complaint by the petitioner, and that soon after an industrial dispute developed between the Estate and the Workers Union called Akhila Kerala Plantation Labour Union. The Government had referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, for adjudication, and on its abolition, the aforesaid case was transferred to the Labour Court, Quilon. The issue so referred and later transferred reads as follows:

(2.) Before the Court, the case on behalf of the Union was that the plantation was dominated by influential Malayalee families, that any attempt to organise the workers was resisted by them, and that from 1949, efforts were being made to organize workers which were being smashed by brutal attacks. The case of the Union further was that the new line had been apportioned among the workers, who occupied the line, that the Superintendent later heard about the occupants paying Union dues, that he thereafter assaulted the new occupants, that the workers protesting committed hartal, that the management effected four days cut in their wages, and that the eight workers alone were dismissed, but those who sided with the management were not. The last part of the Unions case was that the dismissal was illegal, that the workers had not violated any standing orders, that they had not committed any offence, that no reasonable cause was shown for the dismissals, that the dismissals were on untrue, illegal and insufficient grounds and were meant to victimise the workers.

(3.) The Court has found that there was a proper enquiry into the charges against the workers and agreed with the finding of the domestic Tribunal that all the concerned workers were liable for misconduct in having disobeyed the order of the Superintendent, but the Court thought that the punishments in the case were unduly harsh, and the workers did not merit such sentences in the circumstances of the case. The concluding part of the award on this point is relevant, and we would quote it: