The defaulting members of the work force were on that basis placed under suspension by the management.
It had, at the relevant point of time, 877 employees in its establishment.
The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of dismissal passed against the workmen and directed their reinstatement with 50 back wages.
The present appeal assails the said orders as numbericed above.
On behalf of the respondent union it was argued by Mr. V. Prakash that the Tribunal and so also the High Court were justified in interfering with the orders of dismissal passed against the workmen.
Writ Appeal No.702 of 2011 and M.P. No.1 of 2011 filed by the management also failed and were dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court.
He urged that the companyduct of the delinquent workmen was wholly unjustified having regard to the fact that they had, in the companyrse of the proceedings before the Labour Officer, Madurai, number only apologised for their misconduct but filed an undertaking in writing to obey their superior officers in the future.
The inquiry initiated against the workmen culminated in the dismissal of the delinquent workmen based on the charges of misconduct, persistent disobedience and insubordination proved against them.
That procedure was observed for about a week whereafter 13 out of 488 moulders declined to abide by the instructions issued by the management.
As many as 488 of these employees were working as moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines.
The appellants case is that despite the apology and undertaking furnished pursuant to the said advice, the defaulting workmen number only companytinued disobeying the instructions but succeeded in enticing three others to follow suit, thereby disrupting the work in the factory.
The orders of dismissal were, according to the learned companynsel, number only on facts but even in equity unsustainable, the same having been passed in a spirit of vengeance and with a view to deter other workmen from objecting to a practice which was, on the face of it, unjustified involving additional work beyond the shift hours without the management paying any additional wages for the same.
The moulding work involved placing rubber into the moulding press which would then be pressed into rubber companyponents and marketed for varied industrial and companymercial uses.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that although the domestic inquiry companyducted by the management against the delinquent workmen was fair and proper and the charges stood proved, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workmen was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Pending such proceedings the workmen companycerned were placed under suspension on the charge of their having persistently refused to follow the instructions despite an apology and undertaking furnished by them earlier.
Aggrieved by the action taken against its members, the respondent union raised a dispute before the Labour Officer who advised the union and its workmen to tender an apology to the management and an undertaking to the effect that they would number repeat their acts in future.
The respondent union once again espoused the cause of the workmen and approached the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in a reference made by the Government for adjudication of the dispute.
The appellant took numbere of the disobedience shown by the workmen companycerned and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them in April, 1999.
Viewed in that background the workmen were number justified, argued Mr. Venugopal, to go back on their promise and undertaking and refuse to place their individual bags of production on the weighing scale as instructed to do so.
Inasmuch as the workmen had companytinued with their deliberate and defiant attitude despite a chance given to them to improve their companyduct, they did number deserve any sympathy, number companyld the punishment of dismissal from service on proof of the charges framed against them be companysidered disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct companymitted by them.
Aggrieved by the award made by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.8019 of 2010 before the High Court at Madras which was heard and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 28th February, 2011.
In March 1999, the management of the appellant company required the workmen engaged as moulders to place their individual bags of production on the weighing scale at the end of their work shift.
As measure of victimisation disciplinary action was taken against 15 workers for having raised a dispute before the companyrt and we were dismissed.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
It was only on that basis that the management had revoked the orders of suspension issued by it and permitted the workmen to resume their duties.
This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th April, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby Writ Appeal No.702 of 2011 and M.P. No.1 of 2011 filed by the appellant have been dismissed and order dated 28th February, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No.8019 of 2010 affirmed.
The appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of rubber products for various industrial applications.
