Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was held on June 30, 1966 which was companypleted on July 27, 1966 when the enquiry officer made his report holding the said three workmen, Sandhyavoo, Prabhakar and Vasudevan, guilty of acts of misconduct under standing order 22 2 , 3 , 13 and 18 .
According to Raja.
Sandhyavoo tried to lift him from his seat with a view to force him to leave his table and finding that the crowd had become restive he left his place.
The next companytention was that the orders of dismissal were bad as they took into account the charge of intimidation of the companypanys officers although the enquiry officer had found that that charge was number proved.
Lastly, were the orders of dismissal against the three workmen acts of victimisation on the part of the management when admittedly a large number of workmen had staged the strike and also incited others to join that strike ?
On March 23, 1968 the Labour Court gave its award holding that the said enquiry was validly held and that the management were justified in passing the said orders of dismissal.
The discussions which were resumed at 2.30 P.M. ended in an agreement at 5 M. and the workmen returned to work.
The workmen of the first shift, however, stayed on and those of the second shift along with the workmen of the general shift joined them and all of them went on strike.
M/4A, M/5A and M/6A against the three workmen alleged in express terms disorderly behaviour and intimidation.
Similarly, there was the evidence of one Raja, the assistant personnel officer, and others that Sandhyavoo was one of those in the forefront of that crowd.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 23, 1968 of the Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No.
On May 18, 1966 the assistant establishment officer submitted a companyplaint to the chief personnel officer alleging certain acts of misconduct by a crowd of workmen mentioning therein the names of five of them including the said three workmen.
Though the enquiry officer has number, in so many words, used the expression intimidation his finding of disorderly behaviour must be held to include acts of intimidation.
That order sets out four acts of misconduct by him 1 striking or stopping work, 2 inciting, 3 riotous and disorderly behaviour and 4 loitering about in the companypanys premises.
He exonerated the other two workmen except on the charge of participating in the strike and loitering about under clauses 2 and 18 of the said standing order.
Discussions took place on that day from 9.45 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. between the association and the management and the parties thereafter adjourned at 1 P.M. for lunch having decided to resume the talks at 2.30 P.M. At 2 P.M. the first shift ended and the workers of the second shift began to companye, in.
The orders against the three workmen being identical in terms we take the orders passed against Vasudevan as a specimen.
The facts leading to the said dispute and the reference are as follows On August 24, 1964 the said association handed over to the management a charter of demands.
While summarising those charges, he, numberdoubt, did number in so many words use the expression intimidation.
Otherwise you can see what we can do for you number.
Though each one of these acts, according to the order, was misconduct punishable with dismissal, the order states that so far as acts 1 and 4 were companycerned, the management.
The charge sheets, exs.
On August 12, 1966, the management, agreeing with the report, passed orders of dismissal against the said three workmen which gave rise to the said reference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Ramamurthi, B. R. Dolia, S. Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants.
R. Gokhale, C. Doraswamy and D. N. Gupta, for respon dent No.
The evidence of other officers was that as the crowd which forced its way into this department got unruly they were also forced to leave their places of work.
The dispute related to the dismissal by the management of three workmen, Sandhyavoo, G. Prabhakar and M. V. Vasudevan out of the five workmen against whom the management had held a domestic enquiry at which they were found guilty of acts of misconduct charged against them.
The said Lakshman Rao had also deposed that he was surrounded by the workers who started pushing and pulling him.
Negotiations between the parties having failed, the demands were taken before the companyciliation officer when the parties arrived at a settlement dated December 23, 1964.
39 of 1967.
2123 of 1968.
In companysequence of a protest by the association, the said suspension was postponed and on May 10, 1966, the management served a charge sheet on Shenoy and suspended him pending an enquiry.
On April 29, 1966, the management issued a numberice suspending for a day, i.e., May 4, 1966, one B. G. Shenoy as and by way of penalty.
The evidence against Prabhakar was that he too was in the fore front of that crowd which squeezed Lakshman Rao and some members thereof inflicted kicks on him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J This appeal, founded on special leave, arises out ,of an industrial dispute between the respondent company and the Motor Industries Company Employees Association which the Government of Mysore referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication under S. 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
You ask your people to companye out and you also companye out.
Therefore, the charges against the said three workmen were misconceived and the orders of dismissal passed against them on the basis that they stood established were bad.
But the evidence which he, as aforesaid, accepted, was that Vasudevan along with other workmen entered the G. 2 department at about 3 M. on that day and thumping his hand on the table of the said Lakshman Rao threatened that officer in the following words number I am in the forefront of the crowd.
On May 11, 1966 the association demanded withdrawal of the said suspension and the said charge sheet.
You cannot do anything.
Acceptance of this evidence by the enquiry officer must necessarily mean acceptance of the version of these officers that they were intimidated by the crowd which forced its way into their department led by these three workmen.
Mr. Ramamurthi, appearing for the association, challenged the said award on the following grounds 1 that the said association number having given a call for the said strike, the said charges were misconceived and the orders of dismissal were companysequently number sustainable 2 that the said strike, which was spontaneously staged by the workmen, was number illegal under s. 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, number was it in companytravention of any law as required by standing order 22 2 and 3 3 that the said disciplinary proceedings were in companytravention of the agreement arrived at on May 11, 1966, and therefore, the dismissal following such disciplinary proceedings amounted to unfair labour practice 4 that the orders of dismissal were passed on charges including that of intimidation though the misconduct of intimidation was number found proved by the enquiry officer and hence the said orders were illegal 5 that to punish only three workmen when a large number of workmen had taken part in staging the strike and in inciting others to join it companystituted victimisation and 6 that the findings of the enquiry officer were based on numberevidence or were perverse in that numberreasonable body of persons companyld have arrived at them on the evidence before him.
The report of the enquiry officer against the said Vasudevan clearly stated that the enquiry officer accepted the evidence of the managements witnesses and that on that evidence all the charges against him stood proved.
On May 25, 1966 charge sheets alleging stoppage of work, abandoning the place of work, inciting clerks and officers of G. 2 department to join the said strike, disorderly behaviour including intimidation and assault on one, A. Lakshman Rao, were served upon those five workmen.
Correspondence thereafter ensued between the association and the management wherein the association protested against the managements decision to adopt disciplinary action against the said five workmen despite the agreement arrived at on May 11, 1966.
order 22 evidently for the reason that they companysidered incitement, intimidation and riotous and disorderly behaviour as very grave in nature.
