KERALA CERAMICS LTD Vs. ABDUL MAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management, in an industrial dispute, challenge the Award passed by the Labour Court, which reinstated the workman/respondent, allegedly with 5% back-wages. The dispute referred was the termination of the workman from the Management-Company with effect from 20/06/97; whether the same was justifiable. The workman filed Exhibit P11 claim statement before the Labour Court and the Management Exhibit P12 written statement. Though it was contended by the Management that a domestic enquiry was conducted after issuance of charge sheet; no charge sheet was produced and it was also conceded that the domestic enquiry would not be relied upon. The Management, as per the prayer made in its written statement, sought to sustain the termination on the evidence adduced before the Labour Court.

(2.) The Management examined one witness and marked seventeen documents and the Workman examined himself and marked four documents. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Labour Court found that the provisions in the Standing Orders applicable to the Management-Company was not followed with respect to the penal action of imposition of termination on the workman. The learned Counsel appearing for the Management sought to sustain the termination by terming the Award as perverse, especially in the context of the claim statement of the workman having not put forth any specific contention as to his continued presence in the employment of the Management- Company. The workman, it is contended, had made many unsubstantiated allegations with respect to an accident at the gate of the company, which was styled as an employment injury and an order said to have been issued by the Managing Director, by which he was appointed to a lower post, in which he was stated to be continuing even during the absence alleged. The workman in the claim statement also alleged that the termination was on account of complaints filed by him before various authorities, regarding the irregularities said to be recurrently occurring in the company. The workman, it is contended, has absolutely missed the point, which was relevant for adjudication of the dispute referred. No adjudication could have been carried out on the basis of such a claim statement, which did not have any specific contention regarding the misconduct alleged or termination effected. The learned Counsel would urge this Court to upset the Award and uphold the termination of the workman. The workman expired on 10/04/2014, as is indicated from the Interlocutory Application filed for impleadment of legal heirs; the wife and children; who were impleaded as supplemental respondents 3 to 6. Unfortunately, when the matter was taken up for hearing none appeared for the legal heirs.

(3.) As has been argued by the petitioner, the claim statement is not specific and has laboured upon totally irrelevant facts. However, the employment of the workman with the Management-Company is not disputed; nor is the fact of an alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, disputed. The Management's specific case is that the workman who was continuing in employment, in its Porcelain Division was unauthorizedly absent; when he along with a few others were transferred to another division, for reason of the Porcelain Division being partly shut down due to paucity of power. The Management also admits that a memo was issued for unauthorised absence, and then a charge-sheet issued which were not served and were not responded to. In that event, an enquiry was constituted and a termination effected based on the findings in the disciplinary enquiry. It was also contended that there were earlier instances of unauthorised absence, for which also proceedings were taken which were concluded with minor punishments. The habitual conduct of the workman was projected as a reason for termination; on such misconduct being repeated, at this instance. On the admitted facts, it was the duty of the Management to substantiate the issuance of charge sheet, conduct of domestic enquiry etc., despite the workman having not made a specific claim in the claim statement.