ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. M RAJAN BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company has approached this Court questioning the award, dated November 17, 1995, made in I.D. No. 382 of 1992. The first respondent was employed as a semi-skilled worker in petitioner-company. A compliant, dated June 29, 1991, was received from one S. Venkatesan, which was marked before the Labour Court as Exhibit Ml. In the said complaint, Venkatesan has stated that he (sic) was denied confirmation and for the said purpose he approached one Elango, a trade union leader of a particular political party. Thereafter, a demand was made for a sum of Rs. 10,000 by the first respondent. Though such a demand was made, on various occasions the said Venkatesan paid amounts to the first respondent. Basing upon the said letter, the first respondent was enquired orally and is stated to have submitted a letter of acceptance and the consequential apology for the demand of money. The said letter was marked as Exhibit M3 before the Labour Court. On the basis of the said acceptance letter, the petitioner- company terminated the services of the first respondent without any enquiry. Since there was no enquiry, the Labour Court accorded opportunity to both the petitioner and the first respondent to lead evidence. No witness was examined on behalf of either side and no document witness was examined on behalf of either side and no document was filed on behalf of the first respondent. The petitioner-company filed five documents marked as Exhibits Ml to M5. Considering the documents the Labour Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal without there being any enquiry is illegal and consequently set aside the said order and directed the reinstatement with back wages. This award is questioned in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by letter marked as Exhibit M3, the first respondent employee has accepted the demand and also expressed his apology. Though the said letter is not disputed by the first respondent, the Labour Court went on to consider the said letter with reference to its contents and came to the conclusion that the demand of amount made by first respondent was not for benefit but for somebody else. Having given such a finding, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement as the mere demand would by itself amount to misconduct and it is irrelevant as for whom such demand was made. The learned counsel would further submit that in any case, it was the specific stand of the petitioner-company that there was loss of confidence in the first respondent and this aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court before directing reinstatement. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments of the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court: i) Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V.A. Rebello and another AIR 1972 SC 1343 : 1972 (1) SCC 814 : 1972-I-LLJ-501. ii) Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.P. Chopra 1969 (3) SCC 653 : 1970-I-LLJ-63; and iii) Engine Valves Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and another 1991-I-LLJ-372 (Mad).

(3.) On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the complaint marked as Exhibit Ml itself is doubtful, as the Labour Court did not accept such a complaint in the absence of examination of the complainant, viz., Venkatesan. The Labour Court has also while appreciating the said document relied upon certain corrections made in the said letter to hold that what was demanded was for somebody else benefit and not for the first respondent. The Labour Court has properly appreciated Exhibit M3 and has held that the said letter cannot be construed as a letter of acceptance. Therefore only the Labour Court came to the conclusion that an enquiry ought to have been conducted and in the absence of such an enquiry the order of dismissal is illegal. In so far as the second submission of the learned counsel for petitioner as to the loss of confidence, the learned counsel would submit that the first respondent is only a semi-skilled worker and there is no material available to sustain the plea of loss of confidence, except a mere plea in the counter-affidavit.