MANAGEMENT, HARIHARAPUTHRA ESTATE REP THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, G SREENATH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT; Y CHELLAYYAN; A RAJAPPAN, P JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Management, a Rubber Estate represented by its General Manager has filed this Writ Petition challenging the common award passed in I.D. Nos. 638/1992, 642/1992 and 644/1992 dated 27.1.2003 by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that it is a Rubber Estate situated in Kalial village in Kanayakumari District. In this Estate, there were 70 workmen viz., 45 tappers and 25 General Workers (Field Workmen) and the respondents 2 to 4 were working as tappers in the petitioner's estate. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with some others were placed under suspension by order dated 14.4.1990 for refusing to do loading work. As they were suspended employees, they were prohibited from entering into the Estate. However, on 18.4.1990, at about 8.30 a.m., they unauthorisedly came into the Estate and wrongfully confined (gheraoed) the Administrative Officer, the Assistant Superintendent of the Estate and the Jeep Driver of the Administrative Officer on the road in front of the Estate Factory situated in the Peramalai Division of the Estate. They did not allow the Administrative Officer and others to move away from the place. At about 9 a.m., three tappers namely, E.Nelson, P. Johnson (4th respondent) and R. Selvaraj also joined the gherao stopping their work and leaving their work place in the Estate. Later on, police was informed and the police came there and asked the workers indulged in gherao to get dispersed. The workers even refused to give some drinking water for the Administrative Officer who was wrongfully confined and only after 2.00 p.m., after much persuasion, gherao was lifted and the Administrative Officer was released. All the workmen who had indulged in gehrao were given charge memo (show-cause notice) dated 24.4.1990. As per the said notice, the three tappers viz., E. Nelson, P. Johnson (4th respondent) and R. Selvaraj were also placed under suspension. The workmen to whom show cause notices were sent refused to accept the notice except C.A. Chellayyan. The notices were returned as "refused". The fourth respondent who had refused to receive the show cause notice dated 26.4.1990 had committed other misconduct also. On 21.4.1990 at about 6.45 a.m., when Sri Krishna Nair one of the staff member of the petitioner was proceeding to Pannimala Division, P.Johnson, the fourth respondent abused him by filthy language in Malayalam and pushed him away and thereby prevented him from going to the work. For this, a separate charge sheet was also given on 26.4.1990. He further committed another serious misconduct. On 7.5.1990 at about 5.15 am., he along with other workmen closed the main gate and small gate of the Estate Factory situated in Peramalai Division and thereby caused obstruction for other works to go for work. He has even threatened another employee with dire consequences including the threat of physical assault. For this, a separate charge sheet was given on 4.6.1990. The third respondent also indulged in the commission of offence and he was also issued charge memo dated 14.6.1990. Fifteen workmen including the eight workmen who wrongfully confined the Administrative Officer on 18.4.1990 and prevented tapping and field work from being performed for a number of days, were given charges, an enquiry was conducted and after enquiry, they were dismissed from service. The charges levelled against them were found proved in a properly conducted enquiry. The management was able to identify seven workmen who did not participate in the enquiry but participated in the prevention of work. They are (i) C. Johnson, (ii) N. Baby, (iii) Jainy, (iv) Echooty), (v) Sarojini, (vi) Devaky and (vii) Kamalabi.

(3.) All those 15 workers were dismissed from service after giving reasonable opportunities to defend their case pursuant to the findings of the enquiry officer. Seven employees who did not participate in the serious charge of gherao and wrongful confinement of the Administrative Officer of the Management but charged for participating only in preventing the workmen, submitted a written apology for the misconduct committed by them, through their union. There was a Bi-partite Settlement dated 7.5.1991 with the office bearer of Kumari Mavatta Thotta Thozhilalar Sangam who also represented the respondents before the Conciliation authorities. As per the term of settlement, the said seven persons who had tendered unconditional apology were reinstated in service and as per the settlement, the period between the dismissal and the reinstatement was treated as Leave on Loss of Pay and no backwages was paid but they were reinstated. The management also produced a copy of the settlement entered into between the management and the labour union. In that settlement, it was also made clear in Term No. 2 that reinstatement of the said employees was considered as a special case on their giving apology letter and in view of the same, punishment of dismissal was modified treating it as absent on loss of pay from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. Term No. 2 of the Settlement is extracted hereunder for reference.