ITC LIMITED Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein seeks quashing of the order dated 14.6.2006 passed in the Approval Petition Nos. 27 to 48 of 2001 of the first respondent herein. The petitioner challenges the order that the finding is unsustainable on the ground that the respondents did not participate in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, and as such they are disabled from questioning the proceedings of the enquiry officer.

(2.) The petitioner herein is engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons for various customers. It is stated that the election to the trade union was held on December 2000. A new set of office bearers came to power. It is stated that the trouble started when they trespassed into the factory outside their shift timings and encouraged workmen to ignore Factory Standing Orders. It is stated that Ex-General Secretary one A. Joseph Kennedy absented himself over 60 days and ignored all advice to report for work and attend to his duties. He even ignored the direction to attend the enquiry for his absence without leave. When a show cause notice was issued for dismissal on 15.3.2001 asking him to submit his reply by 23.3.2001, he instigated the workmen to go on illegal and unjustified 'stay in' strike from 3 pm onwards on 15.3.2001 and the same continued up to 16.5.2001. The petitioner alleged that the striking workmen stayed inside the factory beyond the duty hours and indulged in illegal activities like gambling, smoking in inflammable areas, consuming alcohol inside the factory premises and abusing management staff. The striking workmen even stopped the machines to bring all operations to a halt from 3 p.m. on 15.3.2001. Apart from this, they threatened the management staff, abused them in filthy language and threatened to enter into the staff residential colony and physically assault the staff and their family members. The petitioner lost a substantial amount of business and that they could not fulfill the Export Promotion Capital Goods obligations. The petitioner also submitted that foreign technicians could not do their job to carry out the important modernization projects. The illegal strike which commenced on 15.3.2001 extended up to 16.3.2001 on which date a settlement was signed under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. As per this, the union agreed to restore normalcy and co-operate with the management to bring about the discipline among the workers. It is further stated that after the memorandum of settlement dated 16.5.2001, the factory resumed operation on 18.5.2001. However, the Ex-Union office bearers, instigated the workmen to defeat 12(3) settlement and embark on a prolonged go-slow strike. The petitioner alleged that such a conduct was against the terms of memorandum of settlement signed on 16.5.2001 under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. It is stated that the workmen participated in the lightning strikes through out the day and night of 31.5.2001 and every month thereafter till October 2001. In spite of the advice given, the union refused to go by the factory standing orders, thus leading to gross in-discipline inside the factory. It is stated that the workmen went on illegal strike from about 14.15 hours on 13.11.2001. The workmen unleashed violence and assaulted 15 managers including the HR Manager and Accountant. They even threatened to kill the Managers and burn them alive and resorted to large scale vandalism and sabotage damaging company property and machinery and vehicles of the managers. They also involved in looting of expensive computer parts and personal belongings of the Managers. The fire protection system was disrupted. The extent of damage caused by the striking workmen was about Rs. 8.3 crores and consequent loss of business was estimated at an additional cost of Rs. 25 crores. A FIR was lodged with the Ennore Police and charges wee framed against 27 workmen including office bearers in the union under various sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 307 and 120B IPC read with Section 149 and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu (Prevention of Damages to Property) Act, 1992. It is stated that the management also caused publication in the newspapers on 18.11.2001 narrating violent incidents. The charge sheet was issued to all the workmen for the various misconducts under relevant provisions of the Standing Orders. It was also displayed in the entrance to the factory in a conspicuous manner. The petitioner alleged that the notices sent were returned as refused. The notice calling upon the workers to attend the enquiry on 22.11.2001 was also not received by the workers. This necessitated the enquiry to be postponed. The enquiry was conducted on 29.11.2001. In spite of wide notice given by Registered post and paper publication intimating the date of enquiry of the matter on 29.11.2001, there was absolutely no response. The deliberate avoidance of the enquiry was termed as one on the instigations by the union. Thereafter wards, the petitioner proceeded with enquiry setting them ex parte and by report dated 12.12.2001 found the workmen guilty of charges. The second show cause notice was issued to the workmen by registered post and by certificate of posting on 15.12.2001 enclosing the copies of the enquiry proceedings, findings of the Enquiry Officer and called upon the workmen to submit their reply. There was no reply. Hence, by order dated 22.12.2001 the petitioner management dismissed the workmen for the proven misconduct. The petitioner sent order of dismissal along with the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act for approval before the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner submits that the dismissal of the workmen concerned were on grounds of proven misconduct, which are very serious and grave in nature.

(3.) On the petition filed by the Management, the workmen filed their counter contending that the enquiry was not fair. It was also further defended by the workmen that their absence was on the ground of pendency of anticipatory bail applications. Ultimately, the Tribunal passed an order on 14.6.2006 reserving liberty to the Management to adduce evidence on merits, after preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the issue is decided.