RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE mere instigation due to trade union activities even in an illegal strike as defined and envisaged under Sections 23 and 24 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act')without resorting to violence , gives right to the management, under the Certified Standing Orders having the force of law, to terminate the services of the workmen, is an im- portant point involved in the present L. P. A. Nos. 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105 and 1114 to 1117 of 1991, which are going to be disposed of by a common judgment on account of the fact that the common question of law and fact is involved in all the L. P. As. which have come for determination and decision before us. The facts can be described as follows:

(2.) THE private respondents of all the writ peti-tions were the office bearers of the Union known as Ranbaxy Employees Union a registered body and were serving with the present appellant M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. , carrying on its business at Mohali There in after called the Company'), The record shows that there was a settlement dated September 10, 1981 between the management and the workers, which settlement was arrived at with the intervention of the Labour Authorities (Reconciliation Officer) and the said settlement was enforceable upto June 30, 1984 in which it was undertaken on behalf of the workmen-private respondents that they would not resort to strike etc. In spite of the commitment the workmen served. , a demand notice dated November 10, 1982 upon the Company and when the demands were not accepted the workmen agitated and ultimately went on strike with effect from December 15, 1982 and this strike continued upto April 20, 1983, when it was called off and the private respondents reported for duty on the same day, but they were refused entry, while a number of other workmen were allowed to resume duty. The management started disciplinary proceeding against the private respondents on the ground that they allegedly instigated the continuance of the strike. They were charge-sheeted on December 21, 1982. The charge-sheet was not personally served upon them and it had to be published in the newspapers. The private respondents did not participate in the inquiry proceedings and before the Inquiry officer and the latter conducted the ex-pane inquiry proceedings against them. It may be mentioned that the Inquiry Officer did not take any steps to enforce the presence of the private respondents nor did he give them any opportunity to take part in the inquiry proceedings. The management however, issued notices even in the newspaper calling upon the private respondents to participate in the inquiry, which was being conducted by Shri S. K. Hiraji, Advocate. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer the services of the private respondents were terminated and in this manner an industrial dispute arose, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and respondent No. l ie. , the Presiding Officer Labour Court, framed the following issues for the disposal of the reference:1. Whether there has been fair and proper inquiry? 2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workmen was justified and was in order?

(3.) NOT satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated August 28, 1991 now the management (Company) has filed the present L. P. As, on the main plea that the misconduct on the part of the workmen is squarely proved under Regulation 18 of the Standing Order and the Standing Order No. 19 gives ample power to the management to terminate the services of such delinquent workmen. It is also the stand of the appellants that the strike was not only illegal but unlawful on account of the settlement which was binding upon the private respondents. The private respondents not simply participated in the illegal strike but also instigated their co-workers to continue with the illegal and unlawful strike and those acts on the part of the private respondents constituted a gross misconduct authorising the management to terminate their services. On the contrary the standing of the private-respondents in the writ petitions was that mere participation in an illegal and unjustified strike per se was not sufficient to impose punishment of termination of services of a workman and that the management must establish that the worker in question indulged in vandalism and/or instigated violence or sabotage. In the instant case there was no such allegations against the workmen nor such alleged legations were proved against them, and, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in upholding the action on the part of the management. The decision to go on strike was taken by all the workers unanimously. The strike was total and complete. The action of the management was discriminatory. 130 workers had gone on strike. Out of them only 13, who were office bearers of the Union, were victimised with the above background of facts, the point for determination is whether the findings of the learned single Judge should be affirmed or that of the Labour Court.