RAM BAHADUR Vs. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This Writ Petition is filed by the aggrieved workman against the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 359 of 1990, dated 14-1996 seeking to quash the said Award, as illegal, not based on facts, and for the grant of consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman in the 2nd respondent-Hospital in the year 1967 and continued as such. The workers of the 2nd respondent formed themselves into a Trade Union and the said union was registered in the name and style of 'St. Ann's Hospital Mazdoor Sangh', which is affiliated to 'Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh'. The petitioner was elected as General Secretary of the Union and used to represent the grievances of the workers before the Management of the 2nd respondent, as the 2nd respondent was not implementing the welfare legislations, which were meant for the welfare of the workers. The petitioner filed representations before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for implementation of Minimum Wages etc. In 1985, as the respondent-Management tried to evict the workers from the quarters by using unsocial elements, the petitioner gave a police complaint against the Management. Therefore, the management took exception to this and persuaded the petitioner to withdraw the said complaint and even threatened the petitioner that action would be taken against him. Pursuant to this, a Charge Memo was issued by the 2nd respondent on 25-10-1985 and the petitioner submitted his explanation for the same on 12-11-1985. The management not satisfied with the said explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to allow him to seek the assistance of the Vice-President of the Union in the enquiry, but the same was refused. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for certain copies of the documents being relied upon by the Management. As they were denied, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 207 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif, Vijayawada seeking stay of the proceedings, along with LA. No. 174 of 1986, seeking urgent orders of stay and an order of status quo was granted Initially, which was vacated finally after hearing the arguments on 10-3-1986. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 12-3-1986 that the enquiry pending against the petitioner was withdrawn and peculiarly on the same day an order of discharge was passed, discharging the petitioner from service on the ground of loss of confidence. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Court, for amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed and thus, the suit has become infructuous. Hence, the petitioner raised the, industrial dispute in I.D.No. 359 of 1990 before the 1st respondent. The Labour Court after framing appropriate issues and considering the evidence adduced by both sides, upheld the order of discharge, observing that there were strained relations between the employer and the employee and therefore, it would not be possible to continue the petitioner in the employment by the management. However, the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000.00. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent- Management had initiated enquiry on certain allegations. Instead of conducting the enquiry and completing the same, the Management has resorted to the impugned action under the colourable exercise of loss of confidence. According to the learned counsel, if the management had lost confidence, there was no need to issue any Charge Memo or to conduct any enquiry. But, the management issued a Charge Memo and conducted an enquiry. When the petitioner was not given the demanded copies of the documents sought to be relied upon by the Management, the petitioner approached the Civil Court to restrain the Management from proceeding with the enquiry. Further, after vacating the status quo order on 12-3-1986, instead of proceeding further with the enquiry, the management passed the impugned order, withdrawing the said enquiry on the very same day i.e., 12-3-1986. According to the learned counsel, the said action of the Management is only with an ulterior motive of denying and depriving the petitioner from his employment. The learned counsel also contended that though the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint, so as to seek declaration of the impugned order as illegal and without jurisdiction, the said amendment application was dismissed and therefore, consequently the suit filed by the petitioner has become infructuous. However, the respondent-Management contended before the Labour Court that the dismissal of the suit by the Civil Court would operate as res judicata, which was accepted, though the said view is clearly devoid of merit. Even on merits also, the learned counsel contended that during the course of enquiry before the Labour Court, the Management relied upon certain instances of alleged irregularities that were committed by the petitioner in 1974. According to the learned counsel, if the petitioner has committed certain acts of irregularities in the year 1974, by which if the management had lost confidence in the petitioner, there is absolutely no justification in continuing him till 1985-86. Even the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner shows that the charges are only with reference to the eviction of the quarters and the police complaint given by the petitioner and not with reference to any of the alleged irregularities committed while discharging duties as watchman. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the discharge of the petitioner on the premise of loss of confidence is only a colourable exercise for illegal termination of the petitioner, that too without conducting any enquiry. The learned counsel also contended that the discharge is not a simpliciter but the grounds urged before the Labour Court clearly show that the said discharge is based on a stigmatic conduct of the petitioner, while discharging duties as the employee of the respondent-Management, in which case an enquiry ought to have been conducted. Hence, the learned counsel sought for quashing of the impugned order of the Labour Court.