Judgment:
H.D. Patel, J.
1. It is rather unfortunate that the departmental enquiry should have been prolonged only because of the wrong and incorrect interpretation of the Standing Orders. This petition filed by the management complains about the callous manner in which an interlocutory order is passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in stopping the disciplinary action against some of the workers and further directing the management to withdraw the order of suspension and to allow those workers to do their regular job. The management prays for quashing the order which according to them is wholly without jurisdiction.
2. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the background of the Industry and its precarious financial position. Suffice it to say that no manufacturing operations are being carried out since 1989 in the factory of 'Khandelwal Tubes' which is a separate unit altogether. A compressor which is the property of manganese mines is also owned by the petitioner-Company. It is alleged that because of the non-renewal of the lease the mines had to be closed and the compressor which was at the mines was brought to the factory of Khandelwal Tubes. It was lying idle. It being a costly machinery, it seems that the management decided to use the compressor in the Ferro Manganese Plant - another unit of the petitioner-Company. A Dumper Truck was : hence arranged on 24.10.1991 for transporting the compressor from one unit to the other. The compressor being heavy, it had to be lifted by crane. The six crane operators are said to have been called one by one to operate the crane and to load the compressor in the said Dumper. It is said that each one of the said crane operators refused to operate the crane and obey the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. Hence, the management served letters, all dated 25.10.1991 to the crane operators in which all circumstances alleged against them and which constitute misconduct under the certified Standing Orders were mentioned.
3. The respondent Union-immediately filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under relevant provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking the relief of withdrawal of the suspension order dated 25.10.1991 and to direct the management to desist from proceeding with the disciplinary action. A consequential relief of directing the management to employ the crane operators was also sought. Simultaneously, an interim relief under provisions of Section 30(2) of the Act was also claimed by a separate application.
4. The petitioner management opposed the complaint as well as the application refuting all allegations made therein. They further contended that there was no infraction of the Certified Standing Orders in issuing letters, dated 1st November, 1991, to the crane operators and placing them under suspension in exercise of the powers of the Standing Orders. After hearing the parties, the learned Industrial Court passed an order as stated above. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The question which falls for determination is whether the management by issuance of letter dated 25.10.1991 to each of the crane operators have infracted Standing Order No. 19(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders? My answer is in the negative for the reasons that follow hereinafter.
6. The gist of the letter dated 25.10.1991 is extracted below: -
'The Compressor owned by the Company is lying in Tube Factory premises. This Compressor is lying idle since there is no manufacturing process at Khandelwal Tubes from August 1989 onwards. Company wanted to gainfully utilise the Compressor at its Ferro Manganese Plant. For this purpose on 24.10.91 at about 1.50 p.m. dumper No. MTG/3119 was sent to Tube Plant. Since the Compressor being heavy, can only be lifted and loaded into the dumper with the help of Crane, you being the Crane Operator, you were instructed by Mr. S.P. Rather and Mr. V.M. Durairaj, your immediate superiors to operate the Crane and load the Compressor in the dumper. You flatly refused to obey the orders. Because of this Compressor could not be loaded into the dumper and the same cannot be utilised gainfully in its Ferro Plant. The above act on your part amounts to misconduct under Standing Order No. 18(a) which is reproduced below:-
'Insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others, or any order of a superior or of any rules, circulars or instructions issued or given or as may be issued or given from time to time'. We are holding an enquiry into the charges. If you want to submit an explanation, you can do so within 8 days from receipt of this chargesheet. Thereafter, the name of the Enquiry Officer, the date and the time of the enquiry will be communicated to you.
You are hereby suspended with immediate effect pending enquiry. During suspension period you will be paid subsistence allowance as per Company's Standing Orders'.
The aforesaid letter incorporates amongst other things the charges, intention to hold enquiry, submission of explanation by the person charge-sheeted and the order of suspension pending enquiry. This letter is stated by the respondent-Union to be one which is not in accordance with Standing Order No. 19(ii). According to them, the said Standing Order contemplates calling for an explanation to the charges before issuance of the charge-sheet. For this purpose, reliance was also placed on Standing Order No. 19(iii) as well. The petitioner management were emphatic in their stand that there is no law which can compel management to seek an explanation first before issuing the chargesheet because adoption of such a course may be prejudicial to the employee. In any event, there is no infraction of Standing Order No. 19, the management having substantially complied those provisions A further submission is also made on behalf of the management that it was not possible for the learned Court below to have set aside the order suspending the crane operators pending departmental enquiry.
7. In order to understand the controversy, Standing Order No. 19(ii) is extracted below :-
'Before inflicting any of the punishments mentioned in Sub-clause (i) above, the Manager shall inform in writing to the employee concerned the act of misconduct committed by him and unless the employee has been given an opportunity to explain circumstances alleged against him, if no explanation is given or if the explanation which is given is not satisfactory, the Manager shall hold an enquiry against the employee concerned in respect of alleged misconduct in the manner set forth in Sub-clause (iii)'.
The aforesaid Standing Order contemplates that the employee should be informed in writing the misconduct committed by him or in other words the charges levelled against him with a view that he files his explanation within stipulated time and in case the explanation submitted is not satisfactory or the employee fails to file the reply, the management is given the power to ' hold the enquiry into the misconduct in the manner stated in Standing Order No. (iii). There cannot be any doubt that the Manager must follow the requirements mentioned in this Standing Order before he decides to inflict punishments of type mentioned in Clause 19(i). Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 19 further elaborates the manner in which the contemplated enquiry will be held. The said Standing Order reads as follows :-
'19(iii) An employee against whom the enquiry has to be held shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and requiring explanation. The employee shall also be given a copy of all documents on which the charges are based. He shall also be given an opportunity to answer the charge-sheet and permitted to be defended by the office bearer of the Union who is an employee of the Company or by any other employee of his choice working in the Company. The employee shall be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence and also cross-examination and witnesses on whose evidence the charges rests. A concise summary of the evidence laid on either side and the employee's plea shall be recorded''.
It speaks about giving of charge-sheet containing the acts of the misconduct said to have been committed by an employee, furnishing copies of the documents on which charges are based; opportunity to submit reply; permission to be defended by an employee; examination of witnesses and recording the summary of evidence and lastly, the plea of the employee. The procedural aspect is contained in this part of the Standing Order right from the time of issuance of charge-sheet till completion of the Departmental Enquiry.
8. Reverting back to the letter dated 25.10.1991, it is nothing but a charge-sheet as it clearly brings out the circumstances appearing against the crane operators or in other words, act of misconduct for which the said operator is answerable. Instead of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, the respondent-Union rushed with a complaint to the Industrial Court and obtained the interim relief. The letter dated 25.10.1991 is quite in conformity with the Standing Orders.
9. To contend that the crane operators were not given an opportunity to submit their explanation as to why action should not be taken against them before enquiry is initiated is totally baseless and without any substance. The Standing Orders do not require that the delinquent should be given an opportunity to explain why an enquiry in respect of a charge should not be conducted against him. The Standing Orders do not contemplate such a procedure. All that the delinquent is entitled to have is that he should be given sufficient notice of the charges against him and of the allegations on which the charges are based and a fair and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and establish his defences, if any, before the enquiring authority. This is an accepted principle of law as laid down in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Their Workman 1967 II LLJ 715.
10. Even otherwise, the bare reading of letter dated 25.10.1991 would show that the management has substantially complied with the relevant Standing Orders. The crane operators are aware of the charges levelled against them. Opportunity to submit their explanation is available. Holding of enquiry is bound to follow if the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory or no reply is filed. These are the requirements which the management must follow under Standing Order No. 19(ii) or for that matter even Standing Order No. 19(iii) which deals with the manner in which the enquiry is to be held. In the absence of any infraction of the Standing Orders, it is difficult to uphold the order of the learned Judge of the Industrial Court.
11. The very same letter which incorporates the charges also contains an order, suspending the crane operators pending disciplinary action. The management could do so under Standing Order No. 19(iv-a) which provides that an employee against whom any action is proposed to be taken may be suspended pending enquiry. This right can, therefore, be exercised by the management even before the proposed action is taken. It is sufficient that the management considers that the alleged charges are not groundless and of pretty serious nature. There is, therefore, no justification for the learned Judge of the Industrial Court to have set aside the order of suspension pending enquiry.
12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs.