WORKMEN OF ASSAM RAILWAY AND TRADING COMPANY LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DIBRUGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 1st Sept. 1984 made by the learned Labour Court Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 23 of 1980.

(2.) The petitioners along with two other workmen were charge-sheeted by the Management, the Respondent No. 2, on the allegation of committing various gross misconduct. Out of 5, charges against two of them were dropped on their tendering unqualified apologies to the Management. The petitioners, the other charge-sheeted workmen did not tender apologies and the Management not being satisfied with their replies to charges, decided to hold a domestic enquiry in respect of the charges made against them. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the domestic enquiry, gave his finding holding that the charges against the petitioners were established. The Management agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the petitioners. On the question of dismissal of the petitioners, an industrial dispute was raised and ultimately the Government of Assam, Labour Department, by Notification No. GLR. 145/80/23 dated 30.7. 80 referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour court, Assam, Dibrugarh on the following issues:

(3.) The reference was registered as Reference Case No. 23 of 1980 in the Court of the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh. After receipt of notices, the Management as well as the workmen filed written statements. The learned Labour Court initially heard the preliminary question as to whether the domestic enquiry was proper and valid. The Management proved the domestic enquiry proceedings before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not proper and valid. There upon the dispute was heard on merit by the learned Labour Court after giving opportunities to the Management and the workmen to adduce evidence. The learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it, held that from the evidences it was clear that the three workmen named in the reference were guilty of offence as per the charge sheet to some extent. The learned Labour Court, however, took into consideration the fact that two other workmen accused of the same charges were pardoned by the Management on their offering apologies and held that same treatment ought to have been given to the petitioners since they deserved also similar treatment from the Management. Learned Labour Court held that since two of the five workmen accused in the same offence, were pardoned, dismissal of the other three workmen, showed discrimination and the mala fide motive of the Management. The learned Labour Court also observed that when the Court asked the advocate of the management as to whether the management was ready to reinstate the petitioners on offering apologies on the footing of the other two workmen, the learned advocate avoided direct answer saying that he had no instruction. On that ground, learned Labour Court held that the dismissal of the three workmen were discriminatory, an act of victimisation and amounted to unfair labour practise. In the exercise of power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), learned Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and modified the punishment to reinstatement of the petitioners to service without back wages and back service benefit on their tendering unqualified apologies to the Management. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after the award was made, all the petitioners have been reinstated in service by the Management on their tendering unqualified apologies.