Case: Godrej &amp; Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Ravindra Shanta Sharma

was not possible to hold an enquiry and that the termination was justified, lay on the management. It was for the management to prove that the employees conduct was tantamount to misconduct. In the present case the management sought an opportunity to lead evidence in the Tribunal. This cannot in my view be faulted in view of the decision in Firestone (supra) and DCM (supra). It was not necessary for the management in the instant case to show that it was not possible to conduct an enquiry since in the Labour Court evidence had in fact been led. This decision is therefore of no assistance to Mr. Singhvi.29. In Punjab Land Development (supra) reliance has been placed on paragraph 77 in support of the respondents plea that the termination amounts to retrenchment without following due process. However this aspect need not be gone into as it is beyond the scope of the present petition. In Chowgule & Co. (supra) this Court observed that if evidence had been led by the company and had been taken into consideration, the company had material on record to show that the workman was responsible for the purpose of acts of calling illegal strike and / or intimidating the workman for following their dictates, it was imperative for the company to have examined at least one workman to show that he was intimidated or to bring any other material on record to substantiate its allegation. Mr. Singhvi relies on this judgment on the aspect of the allegation that the respondent had prevented other workman from attending their duties. I am in agreement with Mr. Singhvi on this aspect since the petitioner in my view had not led evidence before the Tribunal.30. In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) reliance was placed on the proposition set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Pande that on termination reinstatement and back wages is the normal rule and while taking a decision in that behalf the authority concerned would take into consideration certain criteria such as nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employee etc. and once employee showed that he was unemployed the onus on the employer to prove that he was gainfully employed and was getting substantially similar emoluments This principle can be usefully applied to the facts of the present case where the court was satisfied that the evidence on record established the respondent was not gainfully employed after the termination of his services and that the petitioner had not led any evidence to the contrary.31. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Cama, learned Senior counsel has contended that the finding of the Labour Court in paragraph 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment to the effect that the petitioner shall not engage in unfair labour practices by way of victimisation and that by issuing discharge order which was penal in nature and without conducting any domestic enquiry and without bonafide reason resulted in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b) an d(f) of Schedule IV of the said Act. He submitted that there was no basis for arriving at such a finding, the Labour Court in my view was justified in reaching its conclusion on issues (3) to (6) with consequences to follow. As far as the order in revision is concerned the Revisional Court has upheld the order of the Labour Court. The respondent continued to attend work between 3rd November, 2010 and 18th November, 2010 when he was eventually discharged. If the conduct of the respondent had been so grave and serious, then there was no reason why the petitioner company allowed him to attend to work for 15 days during which period the presence of the employee was not found detrimental to the interests of the company. Thus, the revisional Court found in favour of the respondent. Furthermore, although retrenchment compensation was said to have been paid by way of abundant caution provisions of Chapter V-B and Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been followed32. The Revisional Court has observed that the incident took place at the end of the first shift and there was no question to preventing other employees from attending to their duties who were the very employees who had come and gone along with the respondent to the Time Office. In my view the contention that the incident took place in the Time Office outside the operational area of the plant is also an indicator of the fact that there was probably no disruption of work. The two witnesses who on behalf of the company have not deposed to any disruption having been caused. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent has taken up the contention that termination simplicitor did not amount to retrenchment, in law seems illegal. The allegations are made of the tactics of the union to which the petitioner took allegiance by victimising the workman joining the respondent union MNKS. According to the respondent, the petitioner was targeting the respondent by issuing a show cause notice and framing false charges. According to him the company has made identical allegations against the respondent and Mr. Fernandes. Mr. Singhvi had invited my attention to the comparative table of allegations in paragraph 14 of the affidavit in reply. Whereas statements attributed to the respondent were in english those attributed to Mr. Fernandes were in marathi. I find it difficult to believe that both persons made almost identical statements.33. Furthermore it was contended that if there had been a real attempt at outraging the modesty of the lady, it was only expected under Vishakha guidelines to institute an inquiry against the respondent. The impugned judgment of the Labour court also records that if there were a series of altercations and slogan shouting, the security guards would have immediately arrived on the spot. This is one more reason according to the Courts below as to why deposition of Mr. Borkar could not be believed.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]12. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the impugned order. The complaint filed under section 28 and 30(2) of the Act proceeds on the basis that there are 4500 permanent workman employed in the petitioner company all of whom owe allegiance to three unions. The Godrej & Boyce Shramik Sangh is a recognised union but is supportive of the management for many years. It is contended that the said union has ignored the cause of workers and deliberately failed to take up their cause on several occasions. In the affidavit in reply the respondent contended that initially the the petitioners transferred staff committee members including the respondent to various other locations. Thus a background is laid by the respondent. It is contended that the company had issued show cause notice to the respondent in the past and for remaining away from work on one occasion. According to the complainant for the yearbonus was paid @ 16000/to all workers other than to member workers of the second union and the union supported by the respondent.13. The complainant has narrated that on 3rd November, 2010 he along with the said Mr. Fernandes had lodged a complaint at the Vikhroli Police station against the company. According to the complainant he was unemployed since termination of his services and does not have an alternative source of employment. He therefore sought interim relief on the basis that his services were abruptly terminated and thereby the petitioners have committed unfair labour practices under Item 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the said Act. But the respondent contended that the petitioner had filed a false complaint before Vikhroli Police Station and the services of the respondent has been terminated with undue haste, disregarding principles of natural justice by not conducting a departmental enquiry. No opportunity was given for filing his say. The punishment meted out to the respondent was disproportionate. He therefore sought reinstatement with continuity of service and dismissal of the petition.14. The case of the company in its reply filed before the Labour Court indicates that said complaint disclosed no cause of action. It reiterates the incident and narrates how retrenchment compensation has been paid by the way of abundant caution. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed before the Industrial Court proceeds on the basis of the same averment.15. Mr. Borkar in charge of the plant at the material time was also examined on oath. He narrated the incident including the complainants conduct in charging at Mrs. Handa, Senior Manager Personnel. Mr. Borkar was cross examined and during the cross examination he deposed that bonus was not given to each and every workman and he could not say how many workmen were given bonus. He admitted that bonus was not offered to the respondent and his colleague Mr. Fernandes. He admitted that he had not given a written complaint to Mrs. Handa that the respondent workman were shouting slogans. According to him there was no reason to record the incident in writing and after the incident he lodged an FIR in Vikhroli police station. He deposed that the security personnel had also attended the police station. The witness admitted that the respondent was discharged without conducting any inquiry in respect of the complaint. No show cause notice was issued by the complainant or the other workman and the witness was not authorised to issue such a complaint. That the appropriate disciplinary authority was the manufacturing head of the petitioner who had also not authorised any disciplinary action. Furthermore it was disclosed in the deposition that between 3rd November, 2010 and 18th November, 2010, the respondent was on duty and there is no allegation of the respondent having behaved in an untoward manner. The witness Mr. Borkar had not called the security personnel and the other witness examined was Mrs. Handa. She was not aware whether the respondent was working in the company during 3rd October, 2010 to 18th October, 2010. No written complaint or incident was made to any Senior Officer in the company. That only Mr. Borkar and she had made a written complaint of the incident. The conversation which is now set out in the affidavit and the discharge letter is not part of the FIR. The witness admitted that the respondent was not given show cause notice stating that his services was liable to be terminated on account of procedure provided in the Standing Orders.The second witness Mr Umesh Raghunath Kale was also examined and cross examined The impugned order proceeds to hold that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under item 1(a) (b) and (f) of schedule IV. The complainant was directed to be reinstated after adjusting the amounts paid to him as wages and retrenchment compensation. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2015 passed in Revision Application No. (ULP) 83 of 2015 whereby the impugned order passed by the Labour Court was upheld. The Labour Court after evaluating the evidence held that the impugned order records that the discharge order did not reveal the impracticality of holding department inquiry, even though it observed that the acts of complaint was so grave and serious act of indiscipline amounts to misconduct as per Certified Standing Orders No.22. The Court found that the Government authority had contemplated the need for leading evidence, but the discharge order mentioned that the company reserved its rights to adduce evidence to justify its action before the appropriate forum if and when the respondent chose to raise a dispute. The Court therefore inferred that the petitioner was keen to terminate the services of the respondent, thus amounting to colourable exercise of employers rights lacking in good faith and in undue haste.On a reading of Standing Order 21, 22 and 23 dealing with procedure for termination, acts of misconduct and the result of misconduct leading to enquiries to procedure and punishment are all to be read together. In the instant case it is not possible to accept the petitioners contention that the discharge order pursuant to Standing Order 21 need not contain any reasons. If this plea is accepted this would grant unbridled power to deal with the work force which is impermissible and not contemplated in the scheme of the Act. The Labour Court found that the plea of loss of confidence is also not established. Mr. Cama had contended that the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioners witness Mr. Borkar had admitted in his cross examination that no employee had complained in writing that they were restrained by the respondent or Mr. Fernandes from doing their work was perverse. According to Mr. Cama the witnesses had not so deposed. I however find this submission incorrect because the witness has in his cross examination in paragraph 2 answer to the second question has stated as follows: No employee had given in writing. Thus there is no merit in the contention that the impugned order is perverse because as it attributes a statement to a witness which the witness had not made. In appreciating the evidence of Mr. Borkar, the Court has disbelieved his version of the alleged incident.20. Furthermore, the Court observed that Mrs. Handa, Senior Manager – Personnel had admitted to the presence of one Mr. Lekhwar in the office of Mr. Borkar but even Mr. Lekhwar had not reported of the alleged incident. On the other hand, the said Mr. Fernandes has separately lodged a complaint against Mr. Borkar and Mrs. Handa. The impugned judgment of the Labour Court records that the incident is said to have taken place on 3rd November, 2010 and thereafter no further investigation has been carried out in the alleged offences under section 504 and 506 of the IPC since there were cross allegations between respondent and Mrs. Handa regarding the incident. Although the complaint against the respondent included charges of attempt to outrage the modesty of women. No such offence of outraging the modesty of women was recorded against respondent or his colleagues in his group. The Court concluded that the complaint filed on behalf of the company by Mrs. Handa was by the respondent witness probably was a counter blast and was disbelieved. The impugned order has recorded that both witnesses on behalf of the company had made written complaints. However, no other persons are stated to have witnessed the incident. In view of this position and the fact that there were cross complaints filed in the police station, it was concluded that the version of the companys witness could not be believed.21. In TELCO Ltd (supra) the Supreme Court while considering the powers of the Industrial Tribunal upon discharge and dismissal of workmen and whether rules of natural justice have been violated rendering the discharge / dismissal malafide, observed that the company had two alternatives, either to act under the Standing Order or hold a domestic enquiry. Opting for a domestic enquiry would mean that an enquiry would be going on parallel to that before the committing magistrate. The company preferred to invoke the Standing Order. The Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry which had meanwhile been commenced against other employees had been vitiated. Considering extraneous matter it was held that the Tribunal could notthe finding and decide for itself that the orders of dismissal were unjustified and no question of victimisation or bias against the workman could arise once it is held that the finding of misconduct alleged against the employees was properly arrived at and the domestic inquiry would in no way be vitiated. I do not see how TELCO Ltd. (supra) is of any assistance to the petitioner in the present case. The impugned order has evaluated the evidence led and come to a conclusion on appreciation of evidence after the company opted the Standing Order route.22. In Kamal Kishore Lakshman (supra) the Court observed that loss of confidence by the employer in the employee is a feature which certainly affects the character or reputation of the employee and that an allegation of loss of confidence amounted to a stigma. Further it was held that if a domestic enquiry had not been held before the disciplinary action was taken, it is open to the employer to ask an opportunity during the course of adjudication and in the facts of that case, the order of separation based on loss of confidence was justified before the Labour Court. In the present case the petitioner seems to have adopted but the course of its choice and had tried to established its case before the Labour Court and thereafter in revision before the Industrial Court. These Courts have given their finding which are in my view, fair and reasonable. Kamal Kishore Lakshman (supra) merely contemplates a course of action namely seeking to establish a case of misconduct at the time of adjudication. This judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case.23. Firestone (supra) lays down in no uncertain terms that even if no enquiry was held, the parties could adduce evidence before the Industrial Tribunal and in that case the Industrial Tribunal had to decide whether misconduct had been established. It was held that the Industrial Court had no power to straightaway order reinstatement if the enquiry is held to be improper or no enquiry was held provided the employer sought opportunity to lead evidence. If the misconduct was established either in the enquiry or in evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, the punishment cannot be interfered with, except when it is so harsh as to suggest victimisation and that if a dismissal order was set aside it was within the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal whether or not to reinstate the workmen. Firestone (supra) further held that the provisions of welfare legislation suggests that as per the Industrial Disputes Act Courts should adopt a beneficent rule of construction. In my view Firestone (supra) does not come to the assistance of the petitioners. No doubt the company may have been justified in leading evidence before the Labour Court, rather than conducting a domestic inquiry. However the question that arises is, having adopted such course of action and a failed challenge, whether the impugned order called for any interference. In this respect the decision in Firestone (supra) is of no avail.24. In Shankar Chakravarti(supra) the Supreme Court after relying on various decisions in Firestone (supra) the Court observed that even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held was found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the orders, has to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to lead evidence. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider evidence before it for the first time only, if no enquiry is conducted or the enquiry held was found to be defective. The law did not recognise the Tribunal reinstating the dismissed employee merely on finding that no domestic inquiry is held or if the inquiry was found to be defective. In the instant case the management has adopted this route. Shankar Chakravarti(supra) therefore reiterates Firestone (supra) holding that the management itself must seek an opportunity to lead evidence. In that case the High Court had corrected the Tribunal in appeal. It was incumbent on the Industrial Court to give an opportunity to the employee to lead evidence to prove charges alleged. The Court found that there was no pleading seeking additional evidence nor was a request made before the Tribunal when the proceeding was going on till the award was made. The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court was in error in granting an opportunity which had not even been sought. In the case at hand the petitioner sought opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal which was granted and availed of. I do not see how Shankar Chakravarti (supra) is of any assistance to the petitioner in the instant case.25. Furthermore in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (supra) it was held that where no enquiry had been held, the employer or employee has a right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. This was recognised in Firestone wherein it was reiterated that while the right to take disciplinary action and the quantum of punishment is a managerial function, but if the dispute is referred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal had the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. The employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry according to provisions of Standing Orders and principles of natural justice, to ensure that the enquiry was not an empty formality and the interference with the decision of the employer would be justified only when the findings were found to be perverse and if the management had victimised the workman. Even if no enquiry was held the Tribunal was required to satisfy itself of the validity of the order and offer an even opportunity to parties to lead evidence before it. The one who seeks to avail such an opportunity, should ask for it at the appropriate stage and if so asked, the Tribunal has no power to refuse the same.As far as judgments referred to on behalf of respondent are concerned in Davinder Singh and Others (supra) the Supreme Court while dealing with an order of termination for indiscipline at a Railway Station found that the order invoking discharge passed based on compendium of instructions on Home Guards and Rules were not exercised upon the guards concerned on the basis of rule providing for discharge of any member by the authority which had appointed him when his services are no longer required. The Court held that the ground of indiscipline would amount to an act of misconduct and due procedure under Rule 27 had to be followed which provided that no order of dismissal would be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken. The Court quoted that the expression discharge was interpreted by the State of Kerala vs. Mother Anasthasia, Superior General [5 (1997) 10 SCC 79  ] and wherein it was held that discharge should be read ejusdem generis which in that case would indicate abolition of post or course of study etc. except for discharge due to misconduct.28. In Amar Chakravarty and Others vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) the Supreme Court reached a conclusion that if no enquiry is held, the onus of proving that it was not possible to hold an enquiry and that the termination was justified, lay on the management. It was for the management to prove that the employees conduct was tantamount to misconduct. In the present case the management sought an opportunity to lead evidence in the Tribunal. This cannot in my view be faulted in view of the decision in Firestone (supra) and DCM (supra). It was not necessary for the management in the instant case to show that it was not possible to conduct an enquiry since in the Labour Court evidence had in fact been led. This decision is therefore of no assistance to Mr. Singhvi.29. In Punjab Land Development (supra) reliance has been placed on paragraph 77 in support of the respondents plea that the termination amounts to retrenchment without following due process. However this aspect need not be gone into as it is beyond the scope of the present petition. In Chowgule & Co. (supra) this Court observed that if evidence had been led by the company and had been taken into consideration, the company had material on record to show that the workman was responsible for the purpose of acts of calling illegal strike and / or intimidating the workman for following their dictates, it was imperative for the company to have examined at least one workman to show that he was intimidated or to bring any other material on record to substantiate its allegation. Mr. Singhvi relies on this judgment on the aspect of the allegation that the respondent had prevented other workman from attending their duties. I am in agreement with Mr. Singhvi on this aspect since the petitioner in my view had not led evidence before the Tribunal.30. In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) reliance was placed on the proposition set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Pande that on termination reinstatement and back wages is the normal rule and while taking a decision in that behalf the authority concerned would take into consideration certain criteria such as nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employee etc. and once employee showed that he was unemployed the onus on the employer to prove that he was gainfully employed and was getting substantially similar emoluments This principle can be usefully applied to the facts of the present case where the court was satisfied that the evidence on record established the respondent was not gainfully employed after the termination of his services and that the petitioner had not led any evidence to the contrary.The Revisional Court has observed that the incident took place at the end of the first shift and there was no question to preventing other employees from attending to their duties who were the very employees who had come and gone along with the respondent to the Time Office. In my view the contention that the incident took place in the Time Office outside the operational area of the plant is also an indicator of the fact that there was probably no disruption of work. The two witnesses who on behalf of the company have not deposed to any disruption having been caused. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent has taken up the contention that termination simplicitor did not amount to retrenchment, in law seems illegal. The allegations are made of the tactics of the union to which the petitioner took allegiance by victimising the workman joining the respondent union MNKS. According to the respondent, the petitioner was targeting the respondent by issuing a show cause notice and framing false charges. According to him the company has made identical allegations against the respondent and Mr. Fernandes. Mr. Singhvi had invited my attention to the comparative table of allegations in paragraph 14 of the affidavit in reply. Whereas statements attributed to the respondent were in english those attributed to Mr. Fernandes were in marathi. I find it difficult to believe that both persons made almost identical statements.33. Furthermore it was contended that if there had been a real attempt at outraging the modesty of the lady, it was only expected under Vishakha guidelines to institute an inquiry against the respondent. The impugned judgment of the Labour court also records that if there were a series of altercations and slogan shouting, the security guards would have immediately arrived on the spot. This is one more reason according to the Courts below as to why deposition of Mr. Borkar could not be believed.