Case: Pfizer Limited Vs. Mazdoor Congress

filed relating to unfair labour practices. Section 26 of the said Act states that unfair labour practices are those which are listed in Schedules II, III and IV of the said Act. Schedule II enumerates unfair labour practices, on the part of the employees inter alia, in relation to trade union activities. Schedule IV lists the general unfair labour practices which may be alleged against the employers. Item 1 clause (f) of the Schedule IV is as under:- ``(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste. 19. There was no justification whatsoever for the High Court to have allowed respondents 2 and 3, while hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to raise a new contention that there had been an unfair labour practice as contemplated by Item 1(f) and the appellant had acted with undue haste. No such contention was urged before the Labour Court or in revision before the Labour Tribunal. Even in the writ petition filed in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court dismissing the complaints under Section 28 of the said Act, no specific contention had been raised to the effect that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant in issuing the termination order and which could be regarded as an unfair labour practice. Merely because in an affidavit filed before the Labour Court there was a general statement of unfair labour practice covered by Items 1(a) to (f) could be no ground for the High Court to come to the conclusion that a case under Item 1(f) had been made out because respondents 2 and 3 had not led any evidence in this behalf and nor was this contention specifically raised and argued, as already noticed, before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court or even in the writ petition filed before the High Court. 20. Whether there was any undue haste on the part of the employer while discharging or dismissing an employee is a question of fact which has to be determined on the basis of evidence on record. The complaint under Section 28 of the said Act was filed by respondents 2 and 3. If it was their case that there was an unfair labour practice on the part of the appellant herein as contemplated by Item 1(f), then it was incumbent upon the said respondents to state facts on the basis of which the Labour Court could come to the conclusion that there was an undue haste as contemplated by Item 1(f). The complaints filed by the said respondents do not contain any particulars of undue haste and nor was there any evidence led on the part of the said respondents. The High Court clearly erred in making out a new case and in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.21. It is not in dispute that on account of loss of confidence and because of the absence of respondents 2 and 3 from work without leave, the standing orders of the company did empower it to discharge the said respondents on that ground. This being so, even if the High Court could have gone into the question as to whether there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant, in our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court against the appellant herein is without any evidence or basis.22. It would depend upon the facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard. Each case will have to be judged on its own facts. Keeping in mind the undisputed facts of the present case the only question is whether or when the termination letters were issued could it be said that the appellant had acted in undue haste. To recapitulate, on 7th August, 1975 the companys employee Parkar had disclosed that respondents 2 and 3 were involved in the conspiracy of theft of the companys medicines. The said respondents were arrested on 9th August, 1975 and they were absent from duty as from that date. On 10th August, 1975 the statements of said respondents are stated to have been recorded pursuant to which recovery was stated to have been made of the stolen property. Charge-sheet against the said respondents was filed alleging offence having been committed under Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said respondents were not ordinary clerks in the office of the appellant but they were part and parcel of the watch and ward section, respondent No. 2 being the watchman and respondent No. 3 the havaldar. These two respondents were supposed to protect the property of the appellant company and on 14th August, 1975 the appellant company had before it information regarding the alleged involvement of these two persons in the theft of its property. It is difficult for us to appreciate how, under these circumstances, the High Court could possibly have come to the conclusion that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company in removing these respondents from service. The order terminating the services of respondents 2 and 3 was passed nearly 5/6 days after the arrest of respondents 2 and 3 and during which period they had been absent without leave. It cannot be said that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company which could possibly lead to the conclusion that it was guilty of unfair labour practice. The High Court clearly erred in allowing respondents 2 and 3 to make out a new case and then in coming to a conclusion which is clearly untenable. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Courts did not call for any interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. There was no justification whatsoever for the High Court to have allowed respondents 2 and 3, while hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to raise a new contention that there had been an unfair labour practice as contemplated by Item 1(f) and the appellant had acted with undue haste. No such contention was urged before the Labour Court or in revision before the Labour Tribunal. Even in the writ petition filed in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court dismissing the complaints under Section 28 of the said Act, no specific contention had been raised to the effect that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant in issuing the termination order and which could be regarded as an unfair labour practice. Merely because in an affidavit filed before the Labour Court there was a general statement of unfair labour practice covered by Items 1(a) to (f) could be no ground for the High Court to come to the conclusion that a case under Item 1(f) had been made out because respondents 2 and 3 had not led any evidence in this behalf and nor was this contention specifically raised and argued, as already noticed, before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court or even in the writ petition filed before the Highcomplaint under Section 28 of the said Act was filed by respondents 2 and 3. If it was their case that there was an unfair labour practice on the part of the appellant herein as contemplated by Item 1(f), then it was incumbent upon the said respondents to state facts on the basis of which the Labour Court could come to the conclusion that there was an undue haste as contemplated by Item 1(f). The complaints filed by the said respondents do not contain any particulars of undue haste and nor was there any evidence led on the part of the said respondents. The High Court clearly erred in making out a new case and in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.21. It is not in dispute that on account of loss of confidence and because of the absence of respondents 2 and 3 from work without leave, the standing orders of the company did empower it to discharge the said respondents on that ground. This being so, even if the High Court could have gone into the question as to whether there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant, in our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court against the appellant herein is without any evidence or basis.22. It would depend upon the facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard. Each case will have to be judged on its own facts. Keeping in mind the undisputed facts of the present case the only question is whether or when the termination letters were issued could it be said that the appellant had acted in undue haste. To recapitulate, on 7th August, 1975 the companys employee Parkar had disclosed that respondents 2 and 3 were involved in the conspiracy of theft of the companys medicines. The said respondents were arrested on 9th August, 1975 and they were absent from duty as from that date. On 10th August, 1975 the statements of said respondents are stated to have been recorded pursuant to which recovery was stated to have been made of the stolen property. Charge-sheet against the said respondents was filed alleging offence having been committed under Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said respondents were not ordinary clerks in the office of the appellant but they were part and parcel of the watch and ward section, respondent No. 2 being the watchman and respondent No. 3 the havaldar. These two respondents were supposed to protect the property of the appellant company and on 14th August, 1975 the appellant company had before it information regarding the alleged involvement of these two persons in the theft of its property. It is difficult for us to appreciate how, under these circumstances, the High Court could possibly have come to the conclusion that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company in removing these respondents from service. The order terminating the services of respondents 2 and 3 was passed nearly 5/6 days after the arrest of respondents 2 and 3 and during which period they had been absent without leave. It cannot be said that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company which could possibly lead to the conclusion that it was guilty of unfair labour practice. The High Court clearly erred in allowing respondents 2 and 3 to make out a new case and then in coming to a conclusion which is clearly untenable. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Courts did not call for any interference.