USV LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, USV Limited, seeks to challenge the award passed by the 9th Labour Court, Bombay on 6-8-1994 in Reference (IDA) No. 661 of 1985 whereby the said Labour Court answered the reference partly in the affirmative and ordered quashing of dismissal orders dated 30-9-1984 as being unjustified and directed reinstatement of the four employees with continuity of service with effect from 1-10-1984.

(2.) THE petitioner, USV Limited. , (for short "employer") is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. It carries on business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products and bulk drugs. For the said purposes the employer engages about 116 workmen in its factory situated at Govandi, Bombay. The 1st respondent, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The said union in the present matter espoused the cause of four employees, namely, Shri M. N. Raut, Shri T. V. Baria, Shri R. P. Shinde and Miss Pratibha R. Gujar (for short "the workmen concerned" ). The allegation of the employer is that on 5-2-1984 at about 1. 00 p. m. the workmen concerned went to each department and instructed those workmen who were members of the 1st respondent to leave their respective places of work. The employer thus alleges that the workmen concerned instigated the other workmen to stop work and thereby resorted to illegal strike. The workmen concerned and the other workmen thereafter entered the cabin of Shri S. L. Rajkondawar, Deputy Plant Manager where Mr. R. K. Sarma, plant Manager and Mr. K. P. Bhalerao, Personnel Manager were present and gheraoed them in the cabin of Mr. S. L. Rajkondawar for more than four hours from 1. 00 p. m. to 5. 15 p. m. During the period of gherao, all the workmen concerned kept on shouting inside the cabin abusing in filthy language, threatening the officers with dire consequences and throwing wet duster, coins, rubber band, cigarettes and bangles on the aforesaid personnel of the employer. A threat was also given to Mr. R. K. Sarma that they would murder him. The workmen concerned, it is alleged by the employer, also prevented the other Managers from going to toilet or drinking water or taking lunch and participated and instigated the workmen to continue the gherao for over four hours. The employer, therefore, charge-sheeted the workmen concerned for the acts of misconduct, namely, going on an illegal strike or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting in furtherance thereof; holding meeting inside the premises of the establishment without previous permission of the Manager; commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment, and gheraoing the Plant Manager and other two officers. Since the charges levelled against the workmen concerned were grave and serious, they were suspended during the enquiry and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a joint enquiry. The workmen concerned participated in the said enquiry and they were defended by the office bearer of the 1st respondent union. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and by his report and findings dated 17-9-1984 held the workmen concerned guilty of all the charges levelled against them. The employer concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and since according to it, the misconduct proved during the enquiry was grave and serious, by an order dated 30-9-1984 the concerned workmen were dismissed from service with effect from 30-9-1984. The petitioner union thereafter raised an industrial dispute upon which a reference was made to the 9th Labour Court, for answering the industrial dispute, namely, whether Shri M. N. Raut, Shri T. V. Baria, Shri R. P. Shinde and Miss Pratibha R. Gujar should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1-10-1984. The union filed the statement of claim before the 9th Labour Court after the reference was made and documents were also produced by it. The employer submitted written statement and the documents were also produced by the employer. A preliminary issue was framed about the validity and propriety of the enquiry and by the Part I Award dated 26-9-1989, the 9th Labour Court held that the enquiry held against the workmen concerned was fair and proper. Thereafter the Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merits. The employer examined Mr. R. K. Sarma as its witness. The Labour Court heard the parties and after consideration of the available material held that the charges proved against the workmen concerned were serious misconduct. However, while awarding punishment the Labour Court held that since the incident took place on 5-2-1984 i. e. about 10 years before the decision by the Labour Court, denial of back wages to the workmen concerned would be proper punishment and consequently as observed above set aside the dismissal orders of the workmen concerned and ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from 1-10-1984.

(3.) THE only question which requires consideration in this writ petition and is sought to be canvassed by Mr. Rele, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the 9th Labour Court found that the misconduct proved was grave and serious since the workmen concerned abused and gheraoed their officers and they were prevented from going to the toilet or from drinking water or from taking lunch and thus the said officers were tortured and humiliated by the workmen concerned, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the workmen concerned was just and proper and could not have been interfered with by the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Rele relied upon (Christian Medical College Hospital Employees Union and another v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association and others) A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 37, (Worken of Motor Industries Company Ltd. and another v. Motor Industries Company Ltd. and another) 1969 (II) L. L. J. 673 and (Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. and A. Unnikrishnan and another) 1994 (II) L. L. J. 888.