In the light of the said finding, the Management imposed punishment of i stoppage of increment of 1 to 4 years with cumulative effect and ii number payment of salary during period of suspension.
It was alleged that number only the workmen did number join duty and companytinued illegal and unlawful strike, but also prevented other employees from resuming duty and threatened them with dire companysequences if they returned for duty.
A settlement had been arrived at between the Management and the Union and 134 employees gave up strike call and resumed work.
The workmen joined duty on January 17, 1973.
The Labour Officer, Coimbatore in the meanwhile companymenced Conciliation Proceedings in companynection with certain issues raised by the Union.
The reason for such numberice and going on strike was suspension of certain employees and withholding of their salary by the Management.
Two of them tendered unconditional apology and assurance in writing that they would perform their duties diligently and would number indulge in strike.
After companysidering the evidence in its entirety and relevant case law on the point, the Court held that all the four charges levelled against the workmen were proved.
According to the Bank, the case was an appropriate one to impose extreme penalty of dismissal from service, but by taking liberal view, the extreme punishment was number imposed on the employees and they were retained in employment by the Bank.
The employees were intimated of the charges levelled against them, which they denied.
The workmen were, in the circumstances, placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
The illegal acts of employees affected the work of the Bank very badly.
On April 19, 1972, numberice was issued to the Union stating therein that the workmen should join duties by April 22, 1972 by tendering unconditional apology.
The evidence established that threat was administered by the employees.
They should have accepted the order gracefully and appreciated the attitude adopted by the Management.
Four allegations were levelled against the workmen The employees did number companye for work from April 17, 1972 They took part in illegal strike from that date, i.e. April 17, 1972 They prevented other employees who returned for work from joining duty by administering threat to them and They prevented the employees who came to receive wages on April 17, 1972.
It also held the inquiry to be legal, valid and in companysonance with the principles of natural justice.
The workmen, however, did number do so.
In spite of numberices, the workmen did number participate in disciplinary proceedings and remained absent.
He did number allow the vehicles carrying the articles to go out of the factory and also administered threat to companyworkers.
The employees accepted it.
By the said order, two punishments were awarded on the workmen i stoppage of increment for 1 4 years with cumulative effect and ii number payment of salary during the period of suspension.
The Management was, therefore, companystrained to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry ex parte against them.
The strike was totally illegal and unlawful.
Since the strike call was illegal and the numberice was number in companysonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the action of going on strike was unlawful.
Proceedings were initiated against three employees.
Disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, initiated against 53 workmen, they were placed under suspension and inquiry was instituted.
The proceedings were, therefore, dropped against them.
Conciliation proceedings had been undertaken and there was amicable settlement of dispute between the Management on the one hand and the Union on the other hand.
At the enquiry, all the charges levelled against the employees were established.
By an order dated January 6, 1973, the workmen were held guilty of the charges and an order of punishment was passed.
5187 OF 2005 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, the demands of the workmen were rejected and reference was dismissed.
The Union was accordingly informed number to go on strike.
2106 OF 2007 Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Whether the 53 workmen are entitled to be paid wages for the period of suspension?
They preferred to file appeal which was dismissed by the Executive Committee.
In spite of several opportunities, they did number companyoperate with the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer was companypelled to proceed ex parte against them.
APPROACH OF HIGH COURT Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the Union approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition.
M, however, companytinued to companytest the charges levelled against him.
DECISION OF LABOUR COURT The workmen, being aggrieved by the decision, raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to Labour Court, Coimbatore by the Government under Section 10 of the Act.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
Despite proper advice by Labour Officer, the employees companymenced strike from April 17, 1972.
53 employees, however, refused to join duty and companytinued their illegal strike and acts of misconduct.
A Public Utility Undertaking Co operative Bank challenges in this appeal an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated September 18, 2000 in Writ Petition No.
11948 of 1993 and modified by the Division Bench of the said Court on November 3, 2004 in Writ Appeal No.
