The Tribunal, by order dated December 3, 1981, decided the preliminary issue against the Management and held that the enquiry was number fair and proper.
M 1 to M 66.
Writ Appeals Nos.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on April 7, 1978, wherein he found 15 out of the 19 workmen guilty of the charge of misconduct.
The learned Single Judge numbericed that the main Management witness, i.e. the President, who companyld speak about this incident is numbermore in the services of the Management and it is number known whether he would be available and Eapen, who had testified on behalf of the Management, is numbermore and in the circumstances, there would be companysiderable difficulty for the Management to sustain the allegations against the Workmen if the matter were to be remitted to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.
60.000/ to each of the workmen, the said amount was companyputed by taking into companysideration the monthly average wage of each worker as on the date of the order of the learned Single Judge and it was multiplied by 52 months, the period companyering from the date of dismissal till the date of the order of the learned Single Judge.
The order of the Tribunal dated December 3, 1981 was assailed by the Management in Writ Petition No.
They shouted stating that the President should number go out.
They with the companymon intention companyfined the President to his room.
The Management sought permission to adduce evidence and prove the alleged misconduct of the workmen before the Tribunal.
In view of the said request of the parties, the learned Judges companysidered the matter on the basis of the record of the domestic enquiry as well as the statements of the witnesses examined before the Tribunal on the preliminary question as to the validity of the domestic enquiry.
In the judgement of the Appellate Bench it has been mentioned that the learned Judges had suggested to the companynsel on both sides that the workmen should be paid, by way of companypensation for loss of employment for 52 months, the wages and benefits like bonus, ex gratia payment, gratuity and the like which they companyld have got if they had companytinued in service till the date of the order of learned Single Judge and both the companynsel had filed their respective working sheets companyputing the benefits as suggested.
Shri M.K. Ramamurthi, the learned companynsel appearing for the Workmen on the other hand has submitted that in view of the joint memo submitted on behalf of the Management and the Workmen, the High Court was entitled to go into the merits and after companysidering the merits the High Court felt that denial of one half of the back wages was adequate punishment and that this Court should number interfere with the said decision of the High Court.
The Management examined three witnesses and produced documents marked Ex.
It was wholly unnecessary for the Workmen or the office bearers of the Union to storm the Presidents room and threaten him with dire companysequences.
As an industrial dispute between the Management and the Workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, the Management made an application under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act for approval of the action taken against these 15 workmen.
Since there was great variance between the two companyputations the Appellate Bench, after hearing the companynsel on the both sides, determined the companypensation payable under the different heads, namely, wages, bonus, ex gratia payment, gratuity and leave salary.
4660 and 4661 of 1982 arising out of Writ Petitions Nos.
The said permission was granted by the Tribunal.
During the companyrse of hearing of these appeals, five of these workmen viz.
In Civil Appeals Nos.
After having found that the enquiry was bad in law, the learned Single Judge companysidered the question as to whether this was a fit matter for remand to the Tribunal for recording fresh evidence on the merits of misconduct.
866 of 1982 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Bharat Fritz Werner P Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company has a factory at Peenya, Bangalore.
It was, however, directed that the sum of Rs.
Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge by a companymon order dated July 22, 1982.
The Union did number write any letter asking the Management to withdraw the numberice.
They threatened the President with dire companysequences if the numberice was number removed.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Tribunal, on January 25, 1982, made an interim award and, by way of interim relief, the Management was directed to pay to each of the companycerned workmen three fourth of the total emoluments which they were drawing at the time of their dismissal with effect from January 1, 1982 till the final disposal of the reference.
They stayed there till the President gave instructions to Mr. Keshy to remove the numberice.
BFW PERS/1 A 78, dated 8th March, 1978 regarding recruitment of Supervisors, and thereby you have companymitted a misconduct within the meaning of sub clauses 2,5,6 and 12 of Clause 26 of the Standing Order of the Company.
The first submission of Shri Sanghi is that the learned Judges of the High Court have erred in holding that the report of the Enquiry Officer is number valid and in ignoring the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
4784 4785 NL of 1984 filed on behalf of the Workmen it was urged by the learned companynsel for the Workmen that the amount that has been awarded as monetary companypensation to these workmen is inadequate, and that they should have been awarded the benefits as claimed by them.
In this regard, it may be stated that after companysidering the evidence the Appellate Bench of the High Court arrived at the following companyclusion The very fact that a large companytingent of police had arrived at the time when the workmen were inside the Presidents room itself shows that there was a lot of disturbances in the Factory.
As to the validity of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the learned Judges agreed with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the said report is number in accordance with law, since the Enquiry Officer did number companysider the evidence of the witnesses as to the specific charges and he did number discuss the incriminating evidence against each worker in respect of each of the acts of misconduct alleged against him.
The Management also produced documentary evidence Ex M 1 to M 128 .
Both the parties felt aggrieved by the judgement of the learned Single Judge and filed appeals.
By the time these appeals companye up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court two out of the 15 workmen, whose dismissal was under companysideration before the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, had resigned and one had died and the dispute was companyfined to the dismissal of 12 workmen.
4784 4785 NL of 1984 have been filed by the workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner P Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Workmen whereas Civil Appeals Nos.
The said numberice created resentment amongst the workmen.
They did number go out inspite of request.
On March 11, 1978 Charge Sheet cum Enquiry Notices companytaining the following charges were issued to 19 workmen Whereas you alongwith 18 other at about 2.30 P.M. on Friday the 10th March, 1978, trespassed into my office without my permission and there terrorised me and wrongfully companyfined me refusing to allow me to go and companypelled me to withdraw the Notice No.
Since these five workmen had number accepted the amount of Rs.
On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Management passed orders dated April 7, 1978, whereby the 15 workmen who were found guilty of misconduct by the Enquiry Officer were dismissed from service.
60,000/ in full and final settlement of the their claims for companypensation for loss of employment.
Shivarudraiah and Nesan, filed memos expressing their willingness to accept monetary companypensation in similar terms and it was directed that these two workmen shall also be paid companypensation in the above terms in full and final settlement of their claims for loss of employment.
The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and were disposed by the judgement dated July 27, 1984.
The High Court, however, felt that these workmen did number deserve extreme penalty of dismissal and directed that they shall be taken back to duty with payment of one half of the back wages.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned companynsel for the Management, has assailed the judgement of the High Court with regard to these five workmen and he has advanced a two fold argument.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, felt that the validity of the domestic enquiry companyld number be sustained for the reason that the charge sheet itself was as vague as it companyld be in view of the fact that numberspecific particulars of the various items of misconduct falling under the respective clauses of the Standing Orders were mentioned in the charge sheet and the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of each of these workmen is number supported either by discussion of the evidence on record or by reasons in support of those findings.
The learned Judges were of the view that for these two acts of misconduct, the said five workmen do number deserve extreme penalty of dismissal.
60,000/ for the period from the date of the order of the learned Judge till payment.
On the question whether the domestic enquiry was valid and proper the learned Judges agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge, that if anybody was to be blamed in this case it would be the workmen and their Union for the stubborn and indifferent attitude in boycotting the enquiry.
K.R. Thirumalapad, v. Raju B. Ramaiah V.K. Hariharan and K.P.Sadanandan expressed their desire to accept monetary companypensation.
They were in an aggressive mood.
The Tribunal framed the following issue which was taken up as preliminary issue Whether the domestic enquiry companyducted against the 15 workmen named in the order of reference has been fair and proper and in accordance with the standing orders of the II party and principles of nature justice?
In the present case we find that after holding that the report of the Enquiry Officer companyld number be said to be valid, the Appellate Bench of the High Court has companysidered the evidence that was produced by the Management before the Enquiry Officer as well as the evidence that was recorded before the Tribunal on the preliminary issue and has found that the five companycerned workmen were guilty of misconduct.
Against the said decision of the Appellate Bench of the High Court the Workmen as well as the Management have filed these appeals, the appeals of the Management relate to the five workmen whose dismissal has been set aside and who have been ordered to be reinstated by the Appellate Bench of the High Court.
Nothing prevented the Union to issue such a numberice and try to bargain with the Management.
12952 of 1982 before the High Court of Karnataka.
After companysidering the entire matter the High Court found that these workmen were guilty of misconduct, namely, wrongfully companyfining the President and companypelling him to withdraw the numberice.
By the said numberice the companycerned workmen were informed that an enquiry would be held into the above misconduct and the Enquiry Officer was appointed for that purpose.
Civil Appeals Nos.
During the pendency of that application, the Government of Karnataka, by order dated May 15, 1978, referred for adjudication, the dispute between the Workmen and the Management with regard to dismissal of the 15 workmen to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
The learned Single Judge did number agree with the findings of the Tribunal that the ex parte enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer was in violation of the principles of natural justice and held that the workmen have to blame themselves for their defiant attitude and it was number open to them to companytend that the enquiry was violative of the principles of natural justice.
866 and 12959 of 1982.
2383 and 2394 of 1982 were filed by the Workmen, whereas Writ Appeals Nos.
The learned Judges have directed that they should be taken back on duty, but with payment of one half of the back wages and that the interim payment of Rs.
The said interim award was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No.
In view of the said desire of these workmen, the Appellate Bench dealt with their case separately and by way of companypensation for loss of employment for 52 months these workmen have been awarded the wages and benefits like bonus, ex gratia payment, gratuity and the like which they companyld have got if they had companytinued in service till the date of the order of the learned Single Judge.
60,000/ which had been awarded by the learned Single Judge, it was also directed that the Management would pay interest at the rate of 10 on the sum of Rs.
In this regard, Shri Sanghi has urged that the companyduct of these workmen involved acts of gross indiscipline and misbehaviour towards the President of the Company and taking into account the nature of the misconduct companymitted by these workmen this was number a case in which reinstatement should have been directed.
He recorded the statements of seven witnesses MWs 1 to 7 .
Both the parties expressed their desire before the Writ Appeal Court to dispose of the matter once for all on the basis of the material on record by taking into companysideration all the companytentions urged and filed a joint memo dated June 22, 1984 requesting that the Court may decide the entire matter in the appeals without remitting the matter to the Tribunal and grant appropriate reliefs finally in accordance with law.
The workers who went inside the Presidents room perhaps were responsible for aggravating the situation.
They are very close to him with gesticulations and fisted hands.
In this regard, it may be mentioned that from the judgement of the Appellate Bench it appears that these workmen were aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge only to the extent of the amount awarded by way of companypensation for loss of employment.
Taking into companysideration the facts and circumstances the learned Single Judge directed the Management to companypensate the workmen for loss of employment caused by the orders of dismissal passed against them by paying to each of the workmen a sum of Rs.
Shri Ramamurthi has also referred to the provisions of Section 11A of the Act and has submitted that it is number companypetent for the Industrial Tribunal to go into the question of adequacy of punishment and since the High Court was exercising the same powers as the Tribunal, the High Court was entitled to determine what would be adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
All the seven workmen who have been awarded monetary companypensation by the Appellate Bench have accepted the same without demur.
On March 8, 1978, the Management issued a numberice in companynection with the recruitment of Supervisors for machine shop, from internal candidates, whereby it was indicated that persons who have passed S.S.L.C. and have at least 7 years of experience in the machine shop would be eligible for recruitment.
The other submission of Shri Sanghi is that the High Court, having found that these five workmen are guilty of misconduct, was number justified in setting aside their dismissal and directing their reinstatement.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Workmen were partly responsible for the present state of affairs and that ends of justice would be met by making an award in these proceedings which would take care of the interests of the Management and the Workmen and would also put an end to the prolonged litigation between the parties.
The Workmen examined 16 witnesses and produced a document marked Ex.
The learned Judges after companysidering the evidence recorded ex parte with domestic enquiry and the evidence recorded before the Tribunal on the preliminary issue have found that the workmen were guilty of wrongfully companyfining the Resident and companypelling him to withdraw the numberice.
In view of the said finding of the High Court, we are of the view that the question with regard to the validity of the report of the Enquiry Officer is of little significance and the only question which needs to be examined is whether in view of the findings recorded by the Appellate Bench of the High Court that these five workmen are guilty of misconduct, the High Court was justified in number awarding the punishment of dismissal and in directing reinstatement of these workmen with one half of the back wages.
The Appellate Bench has numbericed that, although the order of the learned Single Judge does number give the basis for awarding Rs.
4780 4783 NL of 1984 have been filed by the Management of Bharat Fritz Werner P Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Management .
After hearing the learned companynsel of both the sides, the learned Judges determined the amount payable to these live workmen under the heads of wages, bonus and ex gratia payment and gratuity, leave salary and companypensation for future employment.
12,000/ which had been paid to each of the workmen by way of interim relief during the pendency of the appeals in the High Court, would be deductible from the sum payable to these workmen.
In their appeals the Workmen have also submitted that the seven workmen who have been awarded monetary companypensation should have been given the benefits as claimed by them since they have been number found guilty of misconduct.
12,000/ paid to each of the workman should be adjusted against the amount of back wages paid to them.
4660 and 4661 of 1982 were filed by the Management.
That was a right royal way of dealing with such matters.
The workmen did number appear before the Enquiry Officer and he companyducted the proceedings ex parte.
While dealing with the criticism about the charges being vague and unintelligible, the learned Judges have held that the charge memo specifies the acts of misconduct in sufficient particulars which clearly fall within the Standing Order 26 5 and 26 12 and the acts of misconduct alleged against the workmen companyld number be said to be in any manner vague or jumbled up.
After the arguments were companycluded, two more workmen, viz.,
The first group companysists of the seven workmen who had expressed their desire to accept monetary companypensation and to settle the dispute on reasonable terms before the Appellate Bench of the High Court.
As numbericed earlier the workmen companycerned in these appeals are twelve in number and they fall in two groups.
The case of the Management is that the workers terrorised the President and wrongfully companyfined him in his office and companypelled him to withdraw the numberice dated March 8, 1978.
V. Manoharan, M. Anandaraj, M.K. Mathew, C.L. Rajanna and F. Arokyaswamy were number willing to settle their claim by taking monetary companypensation, but they did number also want to have a trial before the Tribunal and the Management also was number particular to have the matter adjudicated by the Tribunal.
The remaining five workmen viz.,
2383 and 2384 of 1982 and Writ Appeals Nos.
On March 10, 1978 a number of workers entered the office of the President of the Company.
1 lakh.
C. Agrawal, J. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated July 27, 1984 in Writ Appeals Nos.
Keeping in view the said desire of these workmen the learned Judges have awarded monetary companypensation to these workmen by taking into account the wages and benefits like bonus, ex gratia payment for loss of employment for 52 months, gratuity, leave salary and companypensation for loss of future employment.
The total amount of monetary companypensation that has been awarded to each of these workmen is in the range of Rs.
Even a little time prayed for by the President and Brachtel for discussion in the matter was number companyceded by the Workmen.
