MANOJ SHANKAR SALVI Vs. SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISCONDUCT not proved, can reinstatement be denied to the workman ? This is the significant question of law which arises in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant Facts

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the first Respondent Company on 7-1-1991. After successfully completing the probationary period he was confirmed as a permanent employee. The petitioner claims that throughout his service record was good. On 12th June, 1995 the management signed a settlement with the Trade Union known as Shramik Utkarsha Sabha. According to the petitioner, this settlement was not liked by majority of the workmen. Majority of employees left Shramik Utkarsha Sabha and joined another Union viz. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Mahasangh" ). Petitioner was one of the founder members of the said Mahasangh in the first respondents establishment. According to the petitioner, the formation of the Sangh was not liked by the Management. On false pretexts the management began initiating disciplinary proceedings against various employees. In particular, they singled out those who played a leading part in enrolling members in the newly formed Mahasangh as well as those who were active in the formation of the same. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 30-1-1996. The main allegation was that after receiving the benefits under the settlement dated 12th June, 1995, the persons charge-sheeted had not been implementing the terms of the settlement. The relevant part of the charge-sheet is as under : you along with Mr. P. T. More and Mr. G. N. Gawde forced Mr. R. R. Shukla to stop Machine Nos. 131/132. As Mr. R. R. Shukla did not stopped the machine, you yourself along with Mr. P. T. More and G. N. Gawde threatened him and forcibly stopped the said machine. On 28-1-1996, Mr. R. R. Shukla, Token No. 3195 was in the 1st shift commencing at 6. 45 a. m. After completing his shift, when he went to his residence, which is situated opposite to the companys premises, at about 7. 30 p. m. while Mr. R. R. Shukla was attending one meeting of Utkarsha Seva Mandal, you conspired to beat Mr. R. R. Shukla because he has been implementing the Manning Practices and was not agreeing to your instructions for not implementing the Manning Practices. For that purpose, you along with Mr. P. T. More and Mr. G. N. Gawde hired two goondas and all of you along with goondas assembled near Utkarshna Seva Mandal hall in which Mr. R. R. Shukla was attending the said meeting. You sent one goonda inside the hall to summon Mr. R. R. Shukla and accordingly, he called Mr. Shukla outside the said hall. When Mr. R. R. Shukla came out, the goondas started uttering. In the meanwhile, you instructed the goondas to beat Mr. R. R. Shukla and you yourself also started beating Mr. R. R. Shukla along with the goondas. All of you warned Mr. R. R. Shukla that if he again dare to implement the terms of settlement, he will be finished. As a result of this severe beating Mr. R. R. Shukla was injured and was treated at Bhagwati Hospital. " on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner along with the other two persons were said to have been indulged in riotous, disorderly order, indecent behaviour etc. Commission of an act subversive of good behaviour within or outside the establishment, wilful interference with the work of any other workmen. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner requested for certain documents in order to prepare his reply. Since the management did not supply the documents, the petitioner did not give any reply. This request for document was made by letter dated 5-2-1996. On 15th February, 1996 the management initiated a departmental enquiry. The petitioner along with his defence representative attended the enquiry on various dates upto 28-2-1996. On 6-3-1996 though the petitioner was absent his defence representative was present. Thereafter the petitioner was not intimated the date of the enquiry in advance. The petitioner was informed of the date of the enquiry by letters received subsequent to the date of the enquiry. Thus the petitioner was effectively prevented from attending the enquiry and from giving any evidence in support of his case. The enquiry, therefore, was conducted ex parte on 8th April, 1996 in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. In May, 1996 the management sent the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner and he was given 48 hours to submit his reply to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. By his letter dated 23rd May, 1996, the petitioner requested the management for 15 days time to submit his reply. Management did not accede to this request of the petitioner. On 27th May, 1996 the petitioner was discharged from service. The petitioner was compelled to file Complaint (ULP) No. 290 of 1996 in the Labour Court at Mumbai for a declaration to the effect that the management had engaged in unfair labour practices and praying for an order quashing and setting aside the discharge order dated 27th May, 1996. The petitioner also filed an application for interim relief. Management filed reply to the interim application as well as a written statement in reply to the complaint. It was the case of the management that the enquiry had been conducted fairly and that the petitioner was given a proper opportunity to defend himself. The management even sought to rely on a charge-sheet dated 2-1-1996 which was never issued to the petitioner and in respect of which no action was ever initiated against him. On 14th August, 1998 the Labour Court rejected the complaint of the petitioner. The Labour Court declared that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings of the Enquiry Officers were not perverse. Aggrieved against the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Industrial Court on 9th December, 1998. The Revision Application was also dismissed. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1615 of 1999. This writ petition was disposed of on 12th July, 1999 by passing the following order.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. I find much substance in the submissions made by Mr. C. U. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that once the management had failed to prove the misconduct, both the Courts below ought to have ordered reinstatement of the workman. It is by now settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that if the order of dismissal is found to be illegal or void, the natural consequence is reinstatement of the workman in the service with full back wages. Reinstatement can be refused in exceptional circumstances which make it impossible for the employer and the workman to continue with the relationship of employer and employee. This view of mine is buttressed by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court), 1980 Lab. I. C. 1292. In this case the question of relief to be granted to the workman when the order of termination is declared illegal has been answered by the Supreme Court in the following terms :