IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 21599 of 2000(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KOTHA, KAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAITHIRI P.O., WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. 2. THE MANAGER, VAITHIRI PLANTATIONS, THALAMALA ESTATE, VAITHIRI. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.E.VASANDA KUMARI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008 ALONG WITH O.P.NO.21630 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 21599 of 2000 EXT.P1: COPY OF AWARD DATED 18.6.1999 PASSED BY R1 IN I.D. NO.55 OF 1996. EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.478 OF 1996 DATED 20.4.2002 BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P.Nos.21599 & 21630 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT These two original petitions are filed by the workmen involved in the two industrial disputes challenging identical but separate awards in the two industrial disputes, namely I.D.Nos.59/96 and 55/96 before the Labour Court, Kannur. A joint domestic enquiry was conducted by the management on allegations of serious misconduct, in which both were found guilty. Based on the findings in the enquiry, the workmen were dismissed from service in view of the gravity of the misconducts committed by them. Against their dismissal, the workmen raised industrial disputes, which resulted in the impugned awards. Before the Labour Court, the workmen had no case that the enquiry itself was vitiated for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice. Their only contention was that there was no sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to find them guilty. The Labour Court discussed the evidence elaborately and came to the conclusion that the guilt against the workmen O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 2 had been properly proved. Since the Labour Court was also of the opinion that the proved misconducts were serious enough to warrant punishment of dismissal, by the impugned awards, the Labour Court held that the dismissal of the workmen were justifiable and they are not entitled to any relief from the management. 2. The charges against the workmen were that they along with some other workmen attacked the Estate Manager causing grievous injuries to him as a result of which he was hospitalized. The contention of the learned counsel for the workmen is that apart from the interested testimony of the wife of the alleged victim there was no other independent evidence to prove the charges against the workmen. The learned counsel further points out that in that enquiry they had specifically proved that the manager had previous enmity with the workmen since they had reported illegal felling of trees by the Manager which resulted in a forest case registered against the manager by the forest authorities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the manager had reason to fabricate the case against the workmen, which only resulted in the enquiry and subsequent dismissal. They would further O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 3 contend that subsequently in the criminal case charged against the workmen, they were acquitted by the concerned criminal court which would also go to show that the workmen were innocent of the charges. 3. On the other hand, the contention of the management is that there was sufficient evidence in enquiry to find the workmen guilty of the charges as found by the Tribunal and there are no grounds for interference with the awards. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The charge against the workmen was that at 7 a.m. on 19.1.95 when the Manager of the Estate was opening of the Estate office, the workmen along with some others beat the manager with sticks and iron rod and inflicted serious injuries on him. This incident was witnessed by the wife of the Manager. He was immediately taken to the hospital with the help of another employee and a neighbour of the Manager. The doctor examined the manager at 8 a.m. He was treated for serious injuries including fracture. 5. The Labour Court noted the fact that the incident was at 7 a.m. early in the morning and the manager was O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 4 hospitalized at 8 ‘O’ Clock. There was medical evidence to prove the injuries caused to the manager. An employee and the neighbour with whose help the manager was hospitalized were also examined in the enquiry, apart from the wife of the manager all of whom deposed in support of the charges against the workmen. When the fact of serious injuries to the manager was proved and the fact of his having been treated for very serious injuries immediately after the incident were also proved by the medical evidence. That itself, a long way in proving the charges against the workmen especially when both the victim and victim’s wife categorically gave evidence to the effect that it was these workmen along with others who attacked the manager. Then the only question that would arise would be whether the manager and the wife had any bad motive against the workmen to fabricate the case against these workmen. Of course, the workmen had brought in a case of previous enmity of the manager against them. That case was specifically examined by the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that although a forest case was charged by the forest authorities against the manager for cutting trees from the estate, there was no evidence to show that the O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 5 registering of that case was on the information furnished by the workmen. On the other hand, the Labour Court found that the workmen themselves admitted that they along with others had demanded the manager to post them in another field for work. It was refused by the manager, in respect of which the workmen had harboured grudge against the manager. The contention of the workmen was that the manager had fallen down from the steps which resulted in the injury. But the medical evidence was to the effect that the injuries caused to the manager were akin to those which would have been caused on account of use of an iron rod. It was also proved that at the relevant time, the workmen had with them weapons which were necessary for their work. The fact that the wife of the manager was one of the witnesses does not in any way lessen probative value of the evidence adduced by her especially since the evidence is in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer is not expected to look at the evidence as in a criminal case. It is settled law that any evidence which would appeal to a prudent man would be good evidence in a domestic enquiry. Even hearsay evidence would be good evidence. Further, both the workmen admitted that immediately after the incident, O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 6 they were absent from duty. Although they tried to set up a case that they were on leave, that defence was disbelieved by the enquiry officer as well as the Lbaour Court. Here, the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer clearly suggested a clear case against the workmen. I do not find any perversity in the findings of either the enquiry officer or the Labour Court. I am of opinion that the evidence available with the Labour Court was more than sufficient to return a verdict of guilt against the workmen. The proved charges being assault against a superior officer causing him very grievous injuries and there are no extenuating circumstances also in favour of the workmen the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate and not in any way shockingly disproportionate, which is the test to be applied for deciding the validity of punishments imposed by a management. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the impugned awards. As such, there is no merit in these original petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No21599/2000 & Con.case 7