MICHEL SELVARAJ Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition (W.P. No. 13626 of 1990) filed by the management and dismissing the writ petition (W.P. No. 19531 of 1990) filed by the appellant-workman. The following factual scenario will help us understand the dispute involved.

(2.) The fist respondent-management carries on business in the manufacture of heavy duty commercial vehicles and industrial engines. The appellant herein was a daily rated semi-skilled operator on temporary basis and working from 16/07/1980. An incident occurred on 12/08/1981 when the appellant is said to have gone with a group of employees to the factory canteen, abused the canteen manager and assaulted him resulting in injuries. It is suggested that following this incident, a series of violent acts of rowdism, goondaism and arson were indulged by the group of workmen and in that a number of executive and managerial personnel were assaulted. It is suggested that an order-was promulgated under Section 30(2) of the Police Act to prevent the further escalation of the incidents. A lock-out was declared which continued for three months. The appellant, on the particular day, proceeded to the shop-floor along with several others and assaulted one V. Sarathy, Department Head since he was probably questioned as to why instigated the others to stop work. It is suggested that the said Sarathy sustained bleeding injuries. Police complaints were lodged in respect of both the incidents, i. e., assault against the canteen manager and assault against the Department Head. A criminal case, C. C. 115 of 1982 came to be registered on that basis and the appellant was also convicted for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. He was summarily dismissed from service by order dated 18/08/1981, without holding any enquiry and that was challenged by him. A reference was made by the Tamil Nadu Government and was registered before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, as ID. No.45 of 1983. The said reference was dismissed as withdrawn by the award, dated 21/12/1986. Thereafter, the matter was negotiated between the management and the Union, including the non-employment of the appellant at great length and ultimately, it was agreed by the management that only 20 workmen out of 78 could be taken back by way of re-employment but not this appellant. The appellant raised an industrial dispute regarding his non- employment before the Labour Court, Krishnagiri, after a lapse of nearly three years and it was registered as I.D. No. 194 of 1986. Since there was no enquiry held before passing the dismissal order, probably, the employer sought to prove the misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. Ultimately, that evidence was led and the Labour Court passed the award thereupon holding that though the incident was proved and though misconduct of the appellant was also proved, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service was more than adequate and that the appellant deserves sympathy and was, therefore, ordered to be reinstated by the award but, without any back wages. He was also ordered to be reinstated not in his original service but, as a fresh entrant so that the continuity of service was also lost to him. This was challenged by the management by filing the first mentioned writ petition and the workman also filed a writ petition (second mentioned) inasmuch as the Labour Court had denied back-wages to him and had also directed his reinstatement only as a fresh entrant into the service. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by the common judgment. The learned Judge dismissed outright the writ petition filed by the workman/appellant and totally allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent- management and reaffirmed the punishment of dismissal awarded by the management by setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court. It is this judgment of the learned single Judge, which is in challenge before us.

(3.) Sri S.K. Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for appellant- workman firstly took us through the findings recorded by the Labour Court in its award and very fairly admitted that the findings in so far as the misconduct was concerned were undoubtedly against the workman. He, however, pointed out that the Labour Court had painstakingly considered the question of quantum of punishment and it is only after taking into consideration the relevant circumstances and the facts proved, that the Labour Court had exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and has chosen to award the punishment of the denial of back-wages and placement of the workman, after his reinstatement, as a fresh entrant on the rolls. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court, there fore, could not have substituted the punishment granted by the Labour Court and did not have actually the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. Learned counsel further contended that the Apex Court has, time and again, cautioned that once the discretion has been exercised by the Labour Court, by taking into consideration the proved facts, it was not for the High Courts to arrive at a different finding of facts particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226.