This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gauhati regarding a writ petition filed by a tea estate management seeking to quash a labour court award. The labour court had held that the tea estate was not justified in dismissing an employee and that the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The High Court judgment discusses the background of the case, including charges of misconduct against the employee, domestic inquiry proceedings, prior legal challenges, and remand to the labour court. It summarizes the arguments of both parties and examines whether the labour court's findings were justified.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gauhati regarding a writ petition filed by a tea estate management seeking to quash a labour court award. The labour court had held that the tea estate was not justified in dismissing an employee and that the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The High Court judgment discusses the background of the case, including charges of misconduct against the employee, domestic inquiry proceedings, prior legal challenges, and remand to the labour court. It summarizes the arguments of both parties and examines whether the labour court's findings were justified.
Original Description:
Original Title
manu Manager_Hukanpukhuri_Tea_Estate__vs__State_of_Assa
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gauhati regarding a writ petition filed by a tea estate management seeking to quash a labour court award. The labour court had held that the tea estate was not justified in dismissing an employee and that the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The High Court judgment discusses the background of the case, including charges of misconduct against the employee, domestic inquiry proceedings, prior legal challenges, and remand to the labour court. It summarizes the arguments of both parties and examines whether the labour court's findings were justified.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gauhati regarding a writ petition filed by a tea estate management seeking to quash a labour court award. The labour court had held that the tea estate was not justified in dismissing an employee and that the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The High Court judgment discusses the background of the case, including charges of misconduct against the employee, domestic inquiry proceedings, prior legal challenges, and remand to the labour court. It summarizes the arguments of both parties and examines whether the labour court's findings were justified.
Writ Petition (C) No. 126 of 2009 Decided On: 19.09.2015 Appellants: Manager, Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate Vs. Respondent: State of Assam and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.N. Sarma, K. Agarwal, Senior Advocates, K.K. Bhatra, P. Neog and A. Sarma, Advocates For Respondents/Defendant: GA and S. Das, Advocate Case Note: Labour and Industrial - Reinstatement - Validity thereof - Labour Court held that Respondent-employee was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages as Appellant-management was not justified in dismissing Respondent from service - Hence, present petition - Whether Respondent was rightly dismissed on account of had extreme indisciplined conduct - Held, earlier finding of Single Bench that domestic inquiry conducted by management was invalid, remained undisturbed - On remand, management did not adduce any further evidence in support of charges levelled against Respondent - Manager and Assistant Manager who were crucial to narrative of management did not come forward - Labour Court answered reference by recording findings of fact based on evidence on record - No perversity in impugned award of Labour Court - Petition dismissed. [25],[31] and[40] JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1 . By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 08-02-2008 passed by the Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 18/1995. 2. Petitioner is the management and respondent No. 3 is the workman. 3. Facts of the case as projected may be briefly noted. 4 . A bipartite settlement dated 07-03-1994 was entered into between the management and workmen of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate represented by the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha (ACMS) for supply of firewood to the workers by the management. However, because of financial crisis, the management was not in a position to supply firewood to the workers. Management however promised to supply the firewood in installments.
07-07-2020 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
5. Respondent No. 3 who belongs to a different trade union which is not recognized, instigated the workers of the Tea Estate to resort to strike and led other workers to the office of the Manager whereafter the Manager and the Assistant Manager were gheraoed demanding immediate fulfillment of their demand relating to supply of firewood to the workers or payment of cash compensation in lieu thereof. The Manager and the Assistant Manager had to be rescued by the police. 6. On 17-03-1994 respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension. Show cause notice was issued on 30-03-1994. As per the show-cause notice, four charges were framed against the respondent No. 3 as under:-- "(i) He alongwith two others left the place of work and instigated a section of the workers to do so, thereby resorting to an unjustified and lightening strike. (ii) He led a section of the workers to the office of the Manager and gheraoed him and Mr. K.N. Singh, Assistant Manager from 7:30AM to 11AM demanding cash compensation in lieu of firewood. (iii) He abused the two officers with filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences if their demand was not met. (iv) He instigated his followers to resort to violence for which police had to be called to rescue the Manager and the Assistant Manager." 7 . Reply submitted by respondent No. 3 to the show-cause notice was found to be not satisfactory. Accordingly, management decided to hold domestic inquiry against respondent No. 3. For this purpose, Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the inquiry respondent No. 3 remained absent. Consequently, the inquiry was held ex-parte. At the end of the inquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted her report to the management wherein the charges framed against respondent No. 3 were held to be proved. 8 . On the basis of the inquiry report, respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service vide order dated 12-09-1994. 9 . On the dismissal of respondent No. 3, an industrial dispute was raised by him which ultimately led to making of a reference to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh by the appropriate Government i.e. Government of Assam in the Labour and Employment Department u/s. 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide notification dated 10-10-1995. The following issues were referred to adjudication by the Labour Court:-- "(i) Whether the management of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate was justified in dismissing Shri Nimai Dutta from service with immediate effect vide their letter No. A.8/82/94 dtd. 12-09-1994? (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 10. On receipt of the reference, Labour Court registered the same as Reference Case No. 18/1995. On notice being issued, both the sides appeared and submitted their written statements. 11. Labour Court decided to hear validity of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. On this point Enquiry Officer gave evidence on behalf of the management. On 24-01-1997 an order was passed upholding the validity of the domestic inquiry.
07-07-2020 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
Thereafter 3 witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the management. Likewise, 3 witnesses gave evidence in support of the workman. However, the Labour Court took the view that since the domestic inquiry was held to be valid, question of considering the evidence on merit would not arise. Accordingly, award was passed on 20-12- 2000 holding that management was justified in dismissing the workman from service and as such the workman was not entitled to any relief. 12. This was challenged by respondent No. 3 before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5011/2001. By the judgment and order dated 12-02-2007, learned Single Judge held that the domestic inquiry conducted against respondent No. 3 was neither fair nor reasonable. Consequently, the findings of the domestic inquiry and the award were set aside with consequential direction to the management to reinstate respondent No. 3 in service with immediate effect. 13. This decision of the learned Single Judge was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 108/2007. The appellate Court vide the order dated 26-03-2007 while maintaining the Single Bench decision holding the domestic inquiry invalid, however, set aside the order of reinstatement and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for decision on merit after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence if necessary and rehearing the arguments. 14. It appears that the workman i.e. respondent No. 3 thereafter again gave evidence as WW 1. Management did not adduce further evidence. At this stage it may be mentioned that at the earlier stage management had produced four witnesses whereas workman had produced three witnesses including himself as WW 1. 15. On due consideration, the Labour Court vide award dated 08-02-2008 answered issue No. 1 in the negative and held that management was not justified in dismissing respondent No. 3 from service with immediate effect. In so far issue No. 2 was concerned, Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service and further held that he was entitled to continuity in service with full back wages. 16. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed. 17. This Court vide order dated 19-01-2009 admitted the writ petition for hearing and in the meanwhile suspended the impugned award dated 08-02-2008. 18. On an application filed by respondent No. 3 u/s. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 3338/2013, this Court passed order dated 02-04-2014 directing the petitioner to pay last drawn wages to respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 16-11-2013 i.e. from the date of filing of the affidavit by the workman in the Court in compliance to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 19. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 20. Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 had exhibited extreme indisciplined conduct which was prejudicial to maintenance of orderliness in the Tea Estate. No management can condone such unruly and indisciplined conduct. Respondent No. 3 had instigated a section of the workers which resulted in an illegal strike. He had also led a group of workers and gheraoed the Manager and Assistant Manager of the Tea Estate who had to be rescued with the
07-07-2020 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
help of the police. The evidence on record clearly establishes such conduct of respondent No. 3. However, Labour Court overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously answered the reference in favour of the workman. Findings of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. He therefore submits that present is a fit case to interfere with the award and uphold the decision of the management dismissing the workman from service. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:-- "(i) MANU/SC/0341/1975 : (1975) 4 SCC 332 (Chemicals and Fibres of India Limited v. D.G. Bhoir) (ii) MANU/SC/0426/1992 : (1992) 4 SCC 54 (State of Punjab v. Ram Singh) (iii) MANU/SC/0890/1998 : (1998) 1 SCC 650 (P. Virudhachalam v. Management of Lotus Mills) (iv) MANU/SC/0181/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 401 (MP Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma) (v) MANU/SC/0222/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 736 (Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of Haryana) (vi) MANU/SC/0661/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 46 (Obettee (P) Limited v. Md. Shafiq Khan)" 21. On the other hand Mr. S. Das, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 was victimized by the management for raising genuine and bonafide grievance of the workers. Management had failed to supply firewood to the workers as per agreement entered into between them. Respondent No. 3 alongwith other workers had raised legitimate grievance before the management to provide firewood to the workers failing which to pay cash compensation in lieu thereof. Management has exaggerated the protest raised by respondent No. 3 and his fellow workmen. He submits that respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service following an ex-parte inquiry which has been held to be invalid by this Court. On the basis of the materials on record, Labour Court has rightly granted relief to respondent No. 3 by answering the reference in favour of respondent No. 3. The award passed by the Labour Court is based on the materials on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from patent illegality. Award of the Labour Court is liable to be upheld and the writ petition dismissed. 22. Submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record including the LCR. 23. As already noticed above, the following charges were levelled against respondent No. 3 - "(i) He alongwith two others left the place of work and instigated a section of the workers to do so, thereby resorting to an unjustified and lightening strike. (ii) He led a section of the workers to the office of the Manager and gheraoed him and Mr. K.N. Singh, Assistant Manager from 7:30AM to 11AM demanding cash compensation in lieu of firewood. (iii) He abused the two officers with filthy language and threatened them
07-07-2020 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
with dire consequences if their demand was not met. (iv) He instigated his followers to resort to violence for which police had to be called to rescue the Manager and the Assistant Manager." 2 4 . As per the factual narrative, respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension whereafter a show-cause notice was issued to him. Reply of respondent No. 3 was found to be not satisfactory and accordingly domestic inquiry was ordered. However, the domestic inquiry proceeded ex-parte against respondent No. 3. It appears the Enquiry Officer in her report held that the charges against respondent No. 3 stood proved. On the basis of such report, management dismissed respondent No. 3 from service. The led to an industrial dispute, ultimately resulting in registration of the related reference. At an earlier stage award was passed on 20-12-2000 holding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against respondent No. 3 was valid. Labour Court thereafter did not enter into the merits and held that management was justified in dismissing respondent No. 3 from service and therefore he was not entitled to any relief. This came to be challenged by respondent No. 3 before this Court in a writ petition which was allowed by a Single Bench by quashing the award as well as findings of the domestic inquiry with consequential direction for reinstatement of respondent No. 3 in service. On appeal by the management, the Division Bench set aside the order of re-instatement and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a decision on merit after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence and arguments. On remand, only respondent No. 3 gave further evidence whereafter the matter was heard and the award passed. 25. Therefore from the above it is evident that the earlier finding of the Single Bench that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against respondent No. 3 was invalid remained undisturbed. Only the direction for reinstatement was interfered with by the Division Bench and the matter was remanded for hearing afresh by the Labour Court on the justification of the action of the management in dismissing respondent No. 3 from service. However, on remand the management did not adduce any further evidence in support of the charges levelled against respondent No. 3 to justify its action of dismissing respondent No. 3 from service. 2 6 . At this stage, the written statement submitted by the management may be referred to. In the written statement though management had sought leave of the Labour Court to file additional written statement, rejoinder and such other papers and documents to justify dismissal of respondent No. 3, no prayer was made for treating validity of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. Four witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the management as under:-- "MW 1 - Arati Sarma, Enquiry Officer on 22-04-1996. MW 2 - Aftab Ahmed, Head Clerk on 17-08-1999. MW 3 - Anand Barla, Clerk on 17-08-1999. MW 4 - Shamil Nandi, Garden Unit Secretary of ACMS on 17-08-1999." Though three witnesses adduced evidence on behalf of respondent No. 3 as WW 1 - Nimay Dutta, WW 2 - Sudhang Sunar and WW 3 - Basanti, WW 2 and WW 3 being Co-workers of WW - 1, on 11-04-2000, after remand by the Division Bench for decision on merit only respondent No. 3 adduced fresh evidence as WW 1 on 04-10- 2007. Thus, on remand no fresh/additional evidence was tendered by the
07-07-2020 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
management in addition to the evidence already given by MW 2, MW 3 and MW 4 on 17-08-1999 to justify the charges against respondent No. 3 as against the clear evidence of WW 1 denying the charges. 27. On the right of the management to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges against the workman after deciding the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic inquiry against the management, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, reported in MANU/SC/0256/1983 : (1983) 4 SCC 491 laid down the following principles:-- "16. We think that the application of the management to seek the permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for availing the right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges framed against the workman referred to in the above passage is the application which may be filed by the management during the pendency of its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal seeking its permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take a certain action or grant approval of the action taken by it. The management is made aware of the workman's contention regarding the defect in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management under Section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management chooses to exercise its right, it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. But when the question arises in a reference under Section 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry, there is no question of the management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage it cannot be a lowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do." 28. Thus in Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra), the view taken by the Apex Court was that the management should make the request for opportunity to adduce evidence in case the domestic enquiry was held to be invalid in the written statement itself. If such a request was not made at the initial stage, it cannot be allowed to do so at any later stage of the proceeding by filing application which would inevitably delay adjudication of the proceeding thereby frustrating the very purpose and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) & Anr., reported in MANU/SC/0314/2001 : (2001) 5 SCC 43, considered all the relevant decisions on the subject and summed up the position by holding that by the judgment in Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra), the management was given the right to adduce evidence to justify its domestic inquiry only if it had reserved its right to do so in the objection filed to the reference made under section
07-07-2020 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in the application made by it under section 33 of the said Act, meaning thereby that the management had to exercise its right of leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The Constitution Bench opined that the procedure laid down in Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra) is just and fair and that the law laid down therein is the correct law on the point. 3 0 . The Apex Court observed that the right of the management to lead evidence before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal in justification of its decision under consideration by such Tribunal or Court is not a statutory right, but is actually a procedure laid down by the Supreme Court to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings in the disposal of disputes between the management and the workman. 3 1 . Though no evidence was tendered by the management after remand, Labour Court nevertheless considered the evidence earlier recorded and examined the justification and validity of the charges levelled against respondent No. 3 in the light of the evidence adduced. At this stage it may be pointed out that out of the four management witnesses, MW1 was the Enquiry Officer whereas the other three witnesses were the Head Clerk, Clerk and garden unit secretary of the rival union (ACMS). Deposition of MW 1 would be of little evidentiary value as she was the Enquiry Officer of the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against respondent No. 3 since the domestic inquiry has been held to be invalid by this Court which finding has since attained finality. The other three witnesses are low level employees serving under the management with one of them belonging to the rival union. The Manager and the Assistant Manager who were crucial to the narrative of the management did not come forward or were not put up by the management as their witnesses to depose before the Labour Court. 32. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Labour Court held that the workers led by respondent No. 3 had resorted to strike. However it was held that the strike was justified. Labour Court also recorded the finding that respondent No. 3 had only led the other workers in resorting to strike but he did not instigate them to resort to strike. Therefore charge No. 1 was held to be not established against respondent No. 3. 33. In so far charge No. 2 was concerned, Labour Court held that respondent No. 3 had led the other workers in gheraoeing the Manager and Assistant Manager in support of their demand. Accordingly, charge No. 2 was held to be established against respondent No. 3. 34. Regarding use of abusive language and threatening the Manager and Assistant Manager i.e. charge No. 3, the finding of the Labour Court is that the said charge was not satisfactorily proved. 35. As regards the charge of instigating the workers to resort to violence i.e. charge No. 4, Labour Court held that the said charge was not established. 36. Since the findings of the Labour Court that respondent No. 3 had led the workers to strike and had gheraoed the Manager and Assistant Manager have not been questioned by the workman, Court would not enter into an examination of the validity of such findings. However, the strike and gherao were held to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand it is the clear finding of the Labour Court that respondent No. 3 did not instigate the other workers to strike and also he did not use abusive and threatening language against the Manager and Assistant
07-07-2020 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur
Manager. Another finding given is that respondent No. 3 did not incite the other workers to resort to violence. These findings have been recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the available evidence. As already noticed above, the Manager and Assistant Manager were central to the management narrative. They were the best persons to prove the charges against respondent No. 3 that he had instigated the workers to strike, that he had used abusive and threatening language against them and that he had incited the workers to resort to violence, yet they did not come forward or were put up as witnesses to adduce evidence. A witness whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative should be called to depose before the Court. This salutary principle is necessary for eliciting the truth. Absence of the Manager and the Assistant Manager has clearly dented the case of the management. 37. The incident had occurred in the back drop of the failure of the management to honour the settlement entered into with the workers on 07-03-1994 regarding supply of firewood to them. It has come on record that the management had failed to comply with the terms of the settlement which led to simmering tension amongst the workers who on the fateful day went to the office of the Manager and Assistant Manager demanding implementation of the settlement or cash payment in lieu thereof. 38. Tea garden workers are one of the most marginalized sections of the society. For them, life is harsh. They are not expected to ventilate their grievances in a sophisticated and suave manner. Being workers having to grind daily, their method of expression may be rough and ready. Therefore it will be wrong to condemn occasional ventilation of their grievances in such manner. Of course, this is not to condone any illegal strike or any act of intimidation or violence. Having said so, it may be pointed out that the Labour Court on the basis of the materials on record clearly held that no abusive language was used by respondent No. 3 or by the other workers who had gone on strike which was held to be justified and that they did not threaten the Manager and Assistant Manager with violence. Further categorical finding is that respondent No. 3 did not instigate the workers to strike, rather he only led them to strike which has been held to be justified. Though there was gherao, there was no violence accompanying such gherao. 39. Reliance placed by Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Obettee (P) Ltd. (supra) appears to be misplaced in as much as that was a case of an illegal strike whereas in the present case the strike has been held to be justified. Likewise in MP Electricity Board (supra) the charge against the employee of hitting a superior officer with an implement and causing him injury stood proved. On that basis termination order was passed. Therefore, factually the said case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The decision in Onkar Nath Misra (supra) is also distinguishable because in that case during the gherao one of the senior officers received injuries. In that case it was established that the workman had taken part in the gherao of the senior officers in which injury was caused to one of them. But in the present case there is clear finding of fact that not only there was no violence or instigation to violence, respondent No. 3 did not instigate the other workers to take part in the strike or to threaten the Manager and Assistant Manager. The other finding is that no abusive language was used. 40. Labour Court has answered the reference by recording findings of fact based on the evidence on record. Labour Court is an adjudicatory forum where findings of fact are recorded on the basis of evidence adduced. On the basis of the materials on record it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on
07-07-2020 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur