Skip to content


Management of Kamla Dials and Devices Ltd. by Its Executive Director Vs. Sri Aswathaiah - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Labour and Industrial

Court

Karnataka High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Petitions 18861 and 20492/2005

Judge

Acts

Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 17B

Appellant

Management of Kamla Dials and Devices Ltd. by Its Executive Director;sri Aswathaiah S/O Veerabhadrai

Respondent

Sri Aswathaiah;management of Kamla Dials and Devices Ltd. by Its Executive Director

Appellant Advocate

B.C. Prabhakar, Adv. in WP 18861/2005 and ;V.S. Naik, Adv. in WP 20492/2005

Respondent Advocate

V.S. Naik, Adv. in WP 18861/2005 and ;B.C. Prabhakar, Adv. in WP 20492/2005

Excerpt:


.....of her undivided 1/6th share in plaint schedule properties by way of a will as provided in section 59 of the indian succession act has great force and deserves to be accepted. therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the 1st defendant had right to dispose of her undivided 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties by way of a will. the will of d-1 to the extent of 1/6th share is valid and the four sons and lrs of one son who was deceased will get 1/6th share each. as regards the alienation made by one of the son (plaintiff-4) while effecting partition by metes and bounds to the extent possible the share of plaintiff-4 to be identified in item-b (which he has sold). indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 59:will a testator who is having an undivided interest can dispose of her share by way of a will. section 30 of hindu succession act has no application. section 63: will interpretation testatrix claiming to be the absolute owner of entire property bequeathing in favour of her great grandson finding of the court that she is entitled to 1/6th share held, the will is valid to the extent of her 1/6th share. orderhuluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. petitions are by the management as well as by the workman assailing the award passed by the labour court bangalore in id 75/2002 on 1.6.2005.2. the workman joined the services of the management during november 1995 as a trainee and thereafter, he was appointed as grade ii workman with effect from 1.11.1996. in november 1997, his services were confirmed. during 2001, certain misconduct were alleged against the workman like, rude behaviour with his official superiors, use of abusive language and making filmy remarks and gestures, indecent behavior, unauthorised absence and willful insubordination, causing nuisance within the premises and, absence from place of work. in this regard, on several dates, charge sheet were served on the workman. during december, 2001, inquiry was held. based on the inquiry report workman was dismissed from service for the proved misconduct against the said order, workman allowing the dispute and matter was contested. thereafter, after inquiry, labour court passed the award allowing the dispute and directed the management to reinstate the workman with 60% back wages. aggrieved, management has filed wp 18861/2005 to set aside.....

Judgment:


ORDER

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

1. Petitions are by the management as well as by the workman assailing the award passed by the Labour Court Bangalore In ID 75/2002 on 1.6.2005.

2. The workman joined the services of the management during November 1995 as a Trainee and thereafter, he was appointed as Grade II workman with effect from 1.11.1996. In November 1997, his services were confirmed. During 2001, certain misconduct were alleged against the workman like, rude behaviour with his official superiors, use of abusive language and making filmy remarks and gestures, indecent behavior, unauthorised absence and willful insubordination, causing nuisance within the premises and, absence from place of work. In this regard, on several dates, charge sheet were served on the workman. During December, 2001, inquiry was held. Based on the inquiry report workman was dismissed from service for the proved misconduct Against the said order, workman allowing the dispute and matter was contested. Thereafter, after inquiry, Labour Court passed the award allowing the dispute and directed the management to reinstate the workman with 60% back wages. Aggrieved, management has filed WP 18861/2005 to set aside the award. WP 20492/2005 is filed by the workman aggrieved by the denial of 40% bock wages. Hence, these two petitions.

3. Heard the counsel.

4. The case of the Counsel representing the management is, Labour Court did not consider the material evidence on record. Although specific charges are framed it has observed that no charges are framed. Five witnesses were examined by the management to prove the misconduct. Although inquiry authority has held that the workman was guilty of misconduct contrary to the same, without properly appreciating the material evidence on record, it has passed the award which suffers from total perversity. Although there is material produced to prove the misconduct of the workman which is a grave charge and necessarily a ground to pass the order of dismissal, that has been ignored by the Labour Court. It is also submitted, so far the workman has been paid Rs. 1,92,000/- plus by way wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act from 30.8.2005 onwards. Since the company is not getting orders, its operations are closed. Accordingly, it is prayed for setting aside the order of reinstatement end payment of back wages.

5. In the workman's petition, it is stated that the charges leveled are not proved against the workman. Labour Court ought to have awarded full back wages and that the Labour Court has committed several errors on the face of the record.

6. In the light of the arguments advanced and the grounds taken, the point that arises for consideration is whether the award passed by the Labour Court needs interference.

7. The management is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Watch Dials. There are certified standing orders and about seventy eight persons are working. According to the workman, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,010/- p.m. at the relevant point of time. There were several charges leveled against the workman. As per the charge sheet dated 22.6.1998, there is willful misconduct and insubordination, absence from work place during working hours, behaving rudely with the official superiors and disorderly behaviour for which, workman has replied subsequently in the next month. Thereafter, warning letter has been issued after another fifteen days. Several letters were issued from time to time and on 24.2.1999, warning letter was issued regarding breach of discipline in the factory premises. Another charge sheet is issued on 3.7.1999 regarding disorderly behaviour, use of abuse language subversive of discipline. Apart from that, there is also the charge regarding unauthorised absence and a memo is issued on 3.3.2000. Regarding use of abusive language to the Personnel Manager, memo is issued on 12.12.2000. in this regard, warning letter is issued on 18.12.2000. Once again for refusing to discharge work given by the Supervisor, memo is issued on 27.6.2001. Explanation is given by the workman and warning letters issued by the management are also produced. Another charge against the workman is, unauthorised absence for fourteen days. When the Supervisor questioned about the same, the workman has insisted for post facto sanction and abused the official. It is also stated on 21.7.2001 the workman had left the work place and was found loitering in the factory. On issue 1, a finding is given that there was illegal dismissal from service. The inquiry conducted is also held to be not fair and proper. On the issue whether the dismissal is justified Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement with 60% back wages.

8. What has been noticed in die award is, Labour Court has taker, into consideration me reply given by the workman and it appears the workman as if he is innocent, has given his explanation. However, Counsel representing the management has taken me through the various annexures regarding using of words - abusive and obscene language, against the official superiors which is at pages 27 and 28 of the writ petition filed by the management. When the Supervisor asked the workman as to why he did not apply for leave in advance, the workman has taken the Supervisor to task. Similarly, when the workman was instructed to go to the work place by the Supervisor, he has replied that he is tree to go anywhere, everywhere and who is he to ask him. However, in the reply given ii is as if the workman is innocent of the charges leveled against him and has also tried to justify his conduct.

9. Regarding unauthorised absence, Labour Court has noted that the workman had come to work only on 17.7.2001 for the first time and has also noted that management witness did not know whether the workman was absent on 17.7.2001 or not Labour Court has gone to the extent of disbelieving the version of the management witness and tried to justify the conduct of the workman only on the score that the management witness could not say properly whether on 15th and 16th the workman had 'Mended duty or not. But, it is clear from 4.7.2001 to 14.7.2001, the workmen remained absent and also did not apply leave. Later, he approached for post facto sanction of earned leave and this aspect has not been seriously taken note of. Though it is stated that there is ambiguity but whether such unauthorised absence for any other purpose was justified has not been stated Further, the Labour Court has also not stated as to why the management witness has to be disbelieved regarding using of abusive language except stating that it is all concocted Despite placing several material on record Labour Court has passed an order in a passing reference as to the specific allegation made by the management against the workman.

10. Regarding using abusive language, the opinion formed by the Labour Court is, from the place of incident to the place where other people are working the distance is only 1S feet as such, others could not have heard. The reasoning of the Labour Court appears to be perverse because when abusive language is used one can easily hear them though the incident cannot be seen if it has taken place in a separate room. Specifically the management witness has stated that the workman worked for nearly lour years and he has not misbehaved earlier till 1999. Stating that earlier there is no such report against the workman regarding misbehaviour, only to harass him such a allegations is made, Labour Court is of die view that only on account of the submission of die Charter of Demands, mere is unfair labour practice. Of course the explanation offered by die management in this regard is, die workman is not at all an office bearer of die Union and in the usual course his misbehaviour is brought to the notice of the management and inquiry has been held and there is (sic) as such to victimise die workman nor he was an active participant in the union activities as an office bearer. Through out die Labour Court has went on disbelieving die version of the management witness. It appears there is sufficient material evidence on record pointing out the misconduct of the workman regarding unaudiorised absence, use of abusive language and misbehaviour with die superiors. Even though it is stated in the Charge that this workman has misbehaved with the Supervisor without specifically stating die name of die Supervisor, Labour Court has gone to die extent of saying mat there is no charge leveled for which die workman could be held guilty. This appears to be strange.

11. So far as sanctioning of leave for die unaudiorised period and permitting die workman to do duty, Labour Court has opined mat after die employee gives explanation for his unauthorised absence, if they are satisfied, he would be allowed to do work. It has observed that die workman was allowed to work although be remained unauthorisedly absent and a absent and false report was given against the workman. However, what made the Supervisor to give a false report and what are die circumstances under which such as report was given is not forth coming except stating that he was permitted to attend for duties on 16th May. It appears, although several serious charges were leveled against the workmen, Labour Court has taken all those aspects lightly and went on justifying on its own, the conduct of the workman and to exonerate him. In the circumstances, the impugned award needs interference.

12. Further, it is noted as per the submission made and the affidavit filed the management has stopped its operations from May 2009. Necessarily, the charges are in the nature of misbehaviour against the official superior and use of abusive language which would attract a major punishment. Even with regard to unauthorized absence for 14 days, nothing has been stated by the Labour Court as to whether the punishment could be imposed against the workman or act. It has only stated that the workman has been permitted to work as he has attended to work on subsequent two days also. It is also clear there k no sanction of leave immediately prior to going on leave. Although according to the workman he was regular to duties and false allegations ate made against him, it is not as if there are one or two charges. There are four to five charges regarding misbehaviour, loitering in me factory premises, using abusive and obscene language against the official superior and unauthorised absence.

13. In the circumstances, while setting aside the order of reinstatement and payment of 60% back wages, in modification of the award of the labour Court, it is ordered that management shall pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and also back wages which amount is towards full and final settlement, since the workman has already been paid Rs. 1,92,000/- plus towards Section 17B wages from the date of filing of the writ petition till date.

14. Accordingly, petition filed by the management is allowed in part. Petition of the workman is dismissed.

15. Heard further. It is ordered, the management shall pay another Rs. 40,000/- towards full and final settlement, in addition to what has been ordered in the order dated 10.08.2009.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //