PEIRCE, LESLIE AND CO LTD , MANAGING AGENTS OF PERIA KARAMALAI TEA AND PRODUCE CO LTD , REPRESENTING THE MANAGEMENT OF AKKAMALAI ESTATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of the propriety of the non-employment of three workmen was referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. They were all dismissed by the management by the order, dated 1st November, 1960, on a charge that on the morning of 24th September, 1960, they instigated the other workmen not to work since there was a move on the part of the workmen to ask for a holiday that day on account of rain. The management at the domestic enquiry found the charge proved and punished the workmen as aforesaid. The propriety of this action questioned by the three dismissed workmen became the subject of an industrial dispute which was eventually referred for adjudication. The Labour Court, Coimbatore, came to the conclusion that there was altogether no basis for the charge and in that view directed the reinstatement of the three workmen with back wages. This petition is to quash the award.

(2.) The point urged for the management is that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction, reviewed the evidence led at the domestic enquiry as well as before it and came to its own conclusion differing from the finding of the domestic enquiry that the charge was not proved. This Court in Travancore Knitting Co. Tiruppur V. Muthuswamy, 1962 1 LLJ 365 set out the principles which should govern the Labour Court, in dealing with the disciplinary order of a domestic Tribunal. There the Court observed:

(3.) It however, seems to be that the Labour Court was also justified in holding that there was no basis at all for the charge because it was common ground that all the workmen on the particular day went to work at 8 a.m. which was the usual hour for the commencement of the work. On the evidence it appeared that they turned up for work at 7-30 a.m. and because of the inclement weather, there was a request from them or atleast from sone of them that a holiday should be declared. But when the orders came from the General Manager at 7-55 a.m. or 8 a.m. that no holiday would be declared, all went to work. In such circumstances, the Labour Court reasoned that it could not properly be said that there was instigation by the dismissed workmen that the other workmen should not commence work that day. I find nothing wrong in the approach made by the Labour Court.