KAKAJAN TEA ESTATE Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil rule the validity of the award passed by the labour court, Assam, directing the reinstatement of Hardial Turi, a permanent workman of the petitioner tea estate, is questioned. The management framed charges against the workman to the effect that he severely beat up his step -daughter Dukhmi Turi on 21 October 1958 and that she was brought to the hospital in an unconscious condition. It was further alleged against the workman that in the post also he was found guilty of various kinds of misbehaviour and rowdyism by the garden panchayat. The second portion of the charge is vague and relates to some incidents which apparently were not made the subject -matter of any charge at all but were sought to be used in support of the charge now framed, namely, that he had beaten his step -daughter.

(2.) THE management, after holding a domestic inquiry, held that his conduct in beating his step -daughter severely, amounted to gross misconduct and violation of the standing orders and accordingly dismissed the work -man. An industrial dispute was raised and the matter came up for consideration before the labour court. The presiding officer of the labour court, after taking evidence and considering the same, came to the conclusion that the incident complained against did not take place during the duty hours or in the premises of the management, that the workman was not on duty at the time, that the beating was for a just cause for a father to control his daughter and this had no relation or connexion with the working and discipline of the industry, but this was purely a private incident. So holding, the presiding officer of the labour court followed the decisions of Central India Coalfields, Ltd., Calcutta v. Ram Bilas Shobnath 1961 -I L.L.J. 546 and set aside the order of the management and directed that the workman be reinstated giving him the normal relief of reinstatement with full back -wages are continuity of service.

(3.) IN this connexion it would be useful firstly to refer to the case in 1961 -I L.L.J. 546 (vide supra). In that case the respondent had been employed by the appellant as a workman who performed his duties as an underground munshi. A complaint was received against the respondent from several other workmen in the appellant's colliery that the respondent was guilty of rowdy and indecent behaviour at night on 5 June 1957. He went to the quarters of his co -workmen drunk and in a state of heavy intoxication. First he knocked violently at the door of Sarkar Babu, then at the door of Srivastava Babu and used dirty and filthy language of abuse. Then he moved to the door of Madhu Babu and began to tear down the screens and abused Madhu Babu. He then knocked at the door of Tulsi Babu who thought that there might be same accident and so he left left his dinner and opened the door. The respondent then entered the room using filthy language and threw the articles in the room either and thither. The neighbours then collected on the scene and with great difficulty took out the respondent from Tulsi Babu's room. It was further alleged against, the workman that he was a drunkard and was in the habit of causing nuisance to his neighbours. In this context their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows at p. 548: