SANJIV P JATHAN Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as : 'the workman') challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, in complaint (ULP) No. 231 of 1977 dismissing the same on 29th July, 1981.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under : The workman joined the services of the first respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on July 17, 1961 and at the relevant time when his services were terminated by an order dated November 26, 1977 he was working as Assistant Store Keeper. It was his case that since 1975 he was working as Joint Secretary of the Larsen & Toubro Group of Companies Employees' Union which was recognised by the company on January 20, 1976 as a representative union representing the majority of the workmen. He also contended that there was another union called Bharatiya Kamgar Sena which was also operating in the company and by some acts of omission and commission, the company created inter-union rivalry between these who two unions. Then it was alleged that on account of certain violent incidents, the members of the union of the workman were prevented from reporting for work from September 1977. The workman contended that he has addressed a number of letters to the company requesting them to give him adequate protection and take necessary actions against those of the workmen who were indulging in violence, but no steps were taken by the company. Instead, the company issued a charge-sheet to him on November 16, 1977 alleging that on account of his absence from work from September 1, 1977 without permission he violated certain Standing Order. Then he contended that despite the said charge-sheet no enquiry was held against him. The company served the workman with another charge-sheet dated November 21, 1977. The workman tendered explanation by his reply dated November 23, 1977 but thereafter by a letter dated November 26, 1977, the company terminated his services under Standing Order 27(1) alleging that they had lost confidence in him. Under these facts and circumstances, the workman filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') in the Labour Court presided over by the second respondent. The company resisted the said complaint contending that the services of the workman were terminated due to loss of confidence in him and, therefore, no cause of the action can be said to have accrued under the provisions of item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and as there was no punitive dismissal or discharge of the workman the complaint was not maintainable. It was also contended on behalf of the company that the services of the workmen were terminated simpliciter in exercise of the right conferred on the company under Standing Order 27(1) and that cannot be said to be wrong or mala fide. According to the company, the inter-union rivalry assumed unproportionate dimensions causing violence and assaults on the premises of the establishment and also caused damage to the company's property and, therefore, it had to suspend its operations several times. According to them on account of inter-union rivalry there was a regular warfare and in the interest of the business and with a view to resuming operations of its establishment it had no alternative but to terminate the services of some of its workmen who in their opinion were responsible for fomenting trouble and unrest and whose continuance in the employment was dangerous to the working of the company. It was further contended on behalf of the company that they they had terminated the services of all five employees of which four were the members of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. They contended that there were about 6000 employees working in the company and it was impossible for them to provide protection to each of them in the prevailing atmosphere. The company denied that they had in collusion which Bhartiya Kamgar Sena prevented the workmen and members of the union to which the present workman belonged from reporting for work and contended that it was the responsibility and duty of the workmen to report for work and not to shift the blame on the company. In such facts and circumstances, according to the company, they engaged in no unfair labour practice and, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. On such pleadings before him, the learned Labour Judge framed relevant issued. At the trial, the petitioner workman examined himself and relied upon some of the documents. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the company. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that the complaint of unfair labour practice as filed by the workman was maintainable. However, he held that the company did not engage in unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the workman and, therefore, the complainant-workman was not entitled to any relief. He accordingly by his impugned judgment and order dismissed the workmen's complaint. Being aggrieved, the workman filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In support of the writ petition, Dr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen, urged that the workman had all throughout entreated and requested the company to give him protection because he and the members belonging to his union were subjected to violence and assaults and under such circumstances he was not bale to attend his duties but instead of giving protection to the workman, the company served him with two chargesheets and held no domestic enquiry into the allegations made against him and all of a sudden terminated his services on a specious ground that on account of the recent activities of the workman, the company had lost faith in him. Dr. Kulkarni further submitted that the company did not even adduce evidence to established their charges against the workman in the Labour Court. This, in the submission of Dr. Kulkarni, amounts to wrongful and illegal discharge and/or dismissal of the workman which would violate the provisions of item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and the learned Labour Judge was totally wrong in dismissing the complaint of the workman by holding that the company did not indulge in any unfair labour practice as alleged. Controverting the submissions of Dr. Kulkarni, Mr. Shetye, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the company, urged that the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion as he did purely on facts and on appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, which findings of fact should not be interfered with by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. Mr. Shetye further submitted that on the evidence led in the Labour Court, another view could be possible but that by itself would not entitle this Court to upset the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Judge in holding that the company did not commit unfair labour practice covered by item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act Mr. Shetye then submitted that the services of the workman were terminated simpliciter on the ground of loss of confidence which does not amount to retrenchment. Mr. Shetye fairly conceded that termination of services of a workman on the ground of loss of confidence is stigmatic and, therefore, a domestic enquiry should be held or the company should adduce evidence in the Labour Court. Mr. Shetye, however, submitted that on the evidence that was before the Labour Court, the learned Labour Judge was perfectly right in coming to a conclusion that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no unfair labour practice committed by the company. Mr. Shetye took me through the evidence on record to canvass his point.