ASHOK LEYLAND LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I. D. No. 194 of 1986, the Management has filed W. P. No. 13626 of 1990 and the workman has filed W. P. No. 19531 of 1990. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the very same award, the same are disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) FOR the convenience I shall refer the Management as the petitioner and the workman as second respondent. The case of the petitioner-management is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitoner company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, carries on business in the manufacture of Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles and Industrial Engines. The second respondent was recruited as a daily rated semiskilled operator on temporary basis from July 16, 1980. Even within two months of his joining service as temporary employee, he resorted to stoppage of work in a concerted manner on August 29, 1980. Again, he indulged in riotous and disorderly behaviour for which he was given a charge memo dated September 1, 1980, As he expressed regret for his conduct and assured good behaviour, he was merely awarded the punishment of suspension without wages for a few days. Again for a similar incident occurred on November 19, 1980, he was awarded a punishment of suspension without wages between November 20, 1980 and December 11, 1980. For the misconduct which took place on June 29, 1981 on the assurance made by him, he was cautioned and let off. On August 12, 1981, the second respondent along with a group of employees, went to the canteen in the factory which was run by a Contractor and assaulted him resulting in injuries. Following the morning incident, a series of violent acts of rowdism and goondaism and arson were indulged by a group of workmen in which a number of executives and supervisory staff of the Company were assaulted. In view of the grave situation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hosur, promulgated an order under Section 30 (2) of the Police Act to prevent further escalation of the incidents. The petitioner declared a lock- out which continued nearly for three months. Notwithstanding his participation in such violent incidents in the morning including assault on the canteen contractor, the second respondent proceeded to the shop floor along with several others and assaulted his Departmental Head V. Sarathy, since the second respondent was questioned as to why he was instigating others to stop work. The said Sarathy sustained bleeding injuries. In respect of both the incidents involving 2nd respondent and others, police complaints were given and the 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted by the police. With reference to the assault on V. Sarathy, C. C. No. 115 of 1982 was filed before the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Hosur, which after full trial ended in conviction of the 2nd respondent under Sections 341 and 323 of I. P. C. The second respondent herein was guilty of such violent acts and consequently, he had to be summarily dismissed by an order dated August 18, 1981. No enquiry could be conducted in view of the tense situation prevailing in the Unit and its vicinity and also the lock-out declared by the petitioner Company. On behalf of the second respondent, a Trade Union in the petitioner Establishment has raised an Industrial Dispute regarding the dismissal of the second respondent along with the dismissal of few other workmen. On reference by the Tamil Nadu Government, it was taken on file by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras as I. D. No. 45 of 1983. Ultimately, by a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said dispute was settled under which it was agreed that the Union and the Management will discuss the issue bilaterally and settle it amicably and it was also agreed to withdraw the I. D. 45 of 1983. Accordingly, the said Industrial Dispute was dismissed as withdrawn by Award dated December 21, 1986. Thereafter the matter was discussed including the nonemployment of 2nd respondent at great length on several occasions and finally resolved the matter under a 12 (3) settlement dated May 26, 1987. As per clause 4 of the settlement dated May 26, 1987 it was agreed between the parties that only 20 workmen out of the 78 will be offered re-employment as fresh entrants. The second respondent was not one of them.

(3.) IT is further stated that inspite of the above fact, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute regarding his nonemployment before the Labour Officer, Krishnagiri after a lapse of nearly 3 years. Thereafter the matter was taken on file as I. D. 194 of 1986. Before the Labour Court both the parties were permitted to adduce evidence. After having found the rulings of this Court and other Courts have held that workmen indulging in misconducts of violence deserved to be dismissed, the Labour Court, Coimbatore has gone further and observed that on the basis of sympathy, the 2nd respondent should be taken as a fresh entrant but without continuity of service and back wages. Against the said Award, the Management has filed the earlier writ petition and with regard to disallowed claim, the workman has also filed the latter writ petition as stated above.