MANAGEMENT OF BAGHJAN TEA ESTATE Vs. ISHAK KORKORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 2 cases arise out of the Award dated 5.10.2012 in Reference Case No. 13/1986 given by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh. The WP (C) 6247/2012 is filed by the Management of the Baghjan Tea Estate (hereinafter referred to as the Management), whereas the WP (C) 1450/2013 is filed for the workmen represented by the Assam Tea Workers Union. The workmen are aggrieved since the learned Court upheld the dismissal of the 28 workmen, whose case was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the I.D. Act) and held that they are disentitled to reinstatement The Management on the other hand challenges the direction given by the learned Labour Court for reinstatement of 5 workmen with back wages, whose cases were not covered by the reference made to the Labour Court I have heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management while workmen are represented by advocate Mr. B. Chakraborty. Since common arguments are advanced and same facts are being considered, both the cases are disposed of by this order. For the records, the facts are taken from the WP (C) 1450/2013.

(2.) The matter pertains to the Baghjan T.E. in Tinsukia district and the starting point of the case is an incident of 25.4.1984 when a large group of T.E. workers assembled in front of the manager's office and after forcible trespass, physically assaulted the manager to the extent of beating him unconscious. Then the senseless victim was dragged out to the street and some of the co-workers who tried to give medical assistance to the manager were prevented by the unruly mob. The T.E. manager suffered serious injuries and was subsequently shifted to hospital with police help.

(3.) On 30.4.1984 the Management issued charge sheet against 28 workmen involved in the assault of 25.4.1984. However the charge sheet could be served only on few of the available workmen and those who were arrested, were furnished copies of the charge sheet on 8.6.1984, after they were released on bail. A common reply to the charge memo was given by all the workmen on 14.6.1984 and considering the reply to be unsatisfactory the Management decided to conduct a domestic enquiry against the charged workmen.