MANAGING PARTNER, BHARAT HOTEL Vs. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. 11213 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Management') challenges Ext. P-1 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam (second respondent). O. P. 1022 of 1992 is filed by the first respondent in O.P. 11213 of 1991 (hereafter referred to as 'the Union') challenging the denial of backwages to the workers. The Union has also challenged the finding of the second respondent that enquiry with regard to 12 workers was valid and proper.

(2.) The following points arose for consideration before the second respondent:

(3.) In the claim statement filed by the Union it is contended that 67 workmen were dismissed by the Management illegally. The statement filed by the Management shows that services of nine workers were terminated as they were probationers. Services of four employees were terminated as deserters. 39 employees were dismissed from service after conducting domestic enquiry. 15 employees left the establishment voluntarily after settling their accounts with the Management The Union contended that the services of the workers were terminated by the Management purely as a vindictive measure as they joined Ernakulam Hotel Thozhilali Union and so it amounts to victimisation and unfair labour practice. Management denied the allegations regarding illegal dismissal of workmen and took up the stand that it always used to meet their just needs and demands. It is stated that as a result of union rivalry workers belonging to the Union indulged in illegal activities, that conciliatory conferences con vended were in vain and that the workers indulged in acts of force and violence and held out threats of intimidation. According to the Management, after considerable hesitation disciplinary action was taken against the delinquent workmen and in proper domestic enquiry various offences committed by them were established. Against M/s V. J. Antony, A. N. John and P. V. Antony the domestic enquiry was conducted by an Advocate and it was done in accordance with law and in a fair and proper manner. 13 workmen were probationers. Management contended that their services were dispensed with in accordance with service rules of the hotel. With regard to the other workmen the enquiry was done strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.