Full Judgment Text
2007:BHC-OS:1920
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2006
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited
a company incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 and having its office
at Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli,
Mumbai 400 079. ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Suhas Hari Bhalerao
4/178, “Shivneri”,
Dadasaheb Phalke Marg, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 014. ..Respondent.
....
Mr. Ankit Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Mokashi for the Respondent.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2006
Suhas Hari Bhalerao
4/178, “Shivneri”,
Dadasaheb Phalke Marg, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 014. ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited
Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli,
Mumbai 400 079. ..Respondent.
...
Mr. P.M. Mokashi for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ankit Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent.
...
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
CORAM:
nd
22 February, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
2
1. On a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court, by its Part I award
dated 25th September, 2003 held that the disciplinary enquiry was
fair and proper but, that the finding of misconduct was perverse.
The management thereupon adduced evidence in support of the
charge of misconduct. The Labour Court by its award dated 19th
July, 2005 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct
was established on the basis of the evidence on the record and
that the charge was serious in nature. Nonetheless the Labour
Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service, though
without backwages by its award dated 19th July, 2005.
2. Both the workman and the management are in these
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the
award of the Labour Court.
3. The workman was initially employed with the
management with effect from 9th January, 1978 as a checker /
inspector in the Die-casting Department. Subsequently, the
workman was assigned to carry out inspection duties. Some time
in the year 1983-84 the workman had developed back pain and in
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
3
pursuance of his request the management assigned him to carry
out work in the Dog Rocker Assembly line. On 20th November,
1985 a letter of warning was addressed to the workman informing
him that while working on the Dog Rocker Assembly stage in the
Pre-Assembly department, the workman had not been able to fulfill
the normal output of the department despite the fact that several
months had passed since his new posting. The management
noted that the workman had on his request been assigned work of
a light nature which did not involve any bending and which could
be performed in a sitting position on a stool / chair with the job
provided on a work table. By its communication the management
stated that it would be compelled to take action according to law in
the event the workman fails to achieve the required production
norms.
4. On 3rd February, 1986 a charge sheet was issued to the
workman by which disciplinary proceedings were convened on the
allegation that between 22nd November, 1985 and 31st January,
1986 the workman had failed to give normal production, in
accordance with the established norms of production which
amounted to willful insubordination and /or willful slowing down of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
4
production, or a gross neglect in the performance of his duties.
The workman was informed that his persistent refusal to give
normal production was an act subversive of good behaviour within
the premises of the establishment and of the discipline of the
establishment. A chart detailing the production efficiency of the
workman for the period in question was contained in the charge
sheet. The chart indicated that over the period in question the
workman had rendered a production efficiency of between 49%
and 64% of the required norms. The workman was charge-
sheeted under Certified Standing Orders 22(1), 22(3), 22(12) and
22(13). A disciplinary enquiry was convened in which the workman
participated. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were duly
proved. Thereupon the workman was dismissed from service by
an order dated 22nd November, 1990.
5. Upon an industrial dispute being raised, the appropriate
government made a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court by its Part I
award dated 25th September, 2003 came to the conclusion that the
enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court was of the
view that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. On
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
5
behalf of the management evidence was adduced at the stage
prior to the Part I award. The workman also deposed in support of
his case. After the Part I award, the management adduced
evidence in support of the charge of misconduct, of two witnesses.
The first witness was Shri Mohmed Hanif Shaikh, who was the
supervisor in the typewriter plant and to whom the workman was
reporting in the Pre-Assembly Department. The second witness
who deposed in support of the case of the management was a co-
worker, Domnic Rodrigues. The Labour Court on the basis of the
evidence which was adduced by the management came to the
conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established. The
Labour Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence
that under the production norms that were stipulated by the
management, the workman was to fulfill a requirement of 78
assemblies, which he had consistently failed to achieve despite a
cautionary warning dated 20th November, 1985. Subsequently
though there was a settlement dated 10th March, 1985 by which
the existing norms were increased to the extent of 15%, the
workman had not consented thereto and hence the requirement
which he was due to fulfill was that of 78 assemblies as originally
stipulated. The Labour Court held that the job cards of the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
6
workman which were produced on the record clearly provided an
output requirement of 78 assemblies. The Labour Court therefore
found no substance in the contention of the workman that the norm
of 78 assemblies had not been communicated to him. In these
circumstances, the Labour Court was of the view that though the
workman had been assigned to a particular job on his own request,
he had been consistently unable to meet the output requirement
despite a caution issued by the management. The conduct of the
workman was held to be amounting to willful insubordination,
willful slowing down in the performance of the work and the
commission of an act subversive of good behaviour within the
premises of the establishment. The Labour Court held that this
was a serious act of misconduct. Nonetheless, the Court came to
the conclusion that in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the award of a lesser punishment
was required having regard to various mitigating circumstances.
An order of reinstatement was accordingly passed though without
backwages.
6. In the petition that has been filed by the workman (Writ
petition 833 of 2006) in order to impugn the award of the Labour
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
7
Court, it has been urged that at the initial stage, when the fairness
of the enquiry and perversity of findings were to be considered by
the Labour Court, the management as well as the workman had
adduced evidence. The evidence so adduced, it was submitted,
related to both the fairness of the enquiry and the charge of
misconduct. The learned counsel submitted that the production
norms came to be filed on the record only when evidence was
adduced by the management after the Part I award when the
management availed of the opportunity of substantiating the
charge of misconduct before the Labour Court. In these
circumstances, it was submitted that the Labour Court ought to
have considered the evidence of the management on merits even
at the Part I stage where initially the output norms had not been
produced and an adverse inference should have been drawn.
Secondly it was sought to be submitted that the norms which were
filed on the record when evidence was adduced by the
management after the Part I award stage was over would not
show that the required norm of 78 assemblies was expected to be
maintained by the workman. Thirdly it was submitted that the
management had not produced any data relating to the actual work
output of other workmen in the same department.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
8
7. In considering the tenability of the aforesaid challenge
that has been urged on behalf of the workman, it must be reiterated
that ordinarily it is for the disciplinary authority, in an enquiry into a
charge of misconduct to determine as to whether the charge has
been established on the basis of the evidence on the record. The
charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of
probabilities. Where the enquiry has been held to be vitiated or in
a situation where no enquiry has been held, it is now a well settled
principle of law that it is open to the management to seek an
opportunity of establishing the charge of misconduct independently
before the Labour Court. In the present case, the enquiry was held
to be fair and proper, but the Labour Court in the course of the
Part ?I award had held that the findings of the enquiry suffer from a
perversity. The management thereupon adduced evidence in
support of the charge of misconduct. The first witness who
deposed on behalf of the management was Mohmed Hanif Shaikh,
who was employed as a supervisor in the typewriter plant and to
whom the workman was reporting. At the material time when the
workman was transferred to the Pre-Assembly Department, he was
reporting to the witness. This aspect is not controverted. Exhibit
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
9
C-34 were the output norms which were proved through the
witness. The witness explained how the output norms were
calculated with reference to the operations that were involved in
the Dog Rocker B Assembly. The witness deposed as follows :
“I say that the combined norms for the Dog Rocker 'B'
Assembly and other operations mentioned hereinabove,
are fixed in a systematic and scientific manner based on
390 minutes (six and a half hours) working cycle for an 8
hours shift, excluding 30 minutes given for lunch recess.
It is pertinent to mention that the working cycle for the 8
hours shift for this stage, includes 360 minutes (six
hours) of actual time for operations and average 30
minutes (half an hour) for repairs, on the basis of which
the norms were liberally fixed. The balance time of 90
minutes (one and a half hours) was for breakfast, going
to wash-room, tea-break, etc.”
8. After furnishing a break up of the time allocated to each
of the operations, the witness deposed that 78 completed Dog
Rocker B assemblies were required to be produced defect free per
shift :
“I say that 4.6306818 minutes (0.3125 + 0.2556818 +
0.3125 + 3.75) are required to make on Dog Rocker 'B'
Assembly. On this basis, I, therefore say that for 360
minutes (six hours) the output would be 77.742331 Dog
Rocker 'B' Assemblies (i.e. 360/4.6306818 = 77.742331)
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
10
rounded off to 78 complete Dog Rocker 'B' Assemblies.
I, therefore, say that in an eight hour shift, a workman
was required to give the established production/ output
of 78 complete defect-free Dog Rocker Assemblies per
shift, prevailing prior to the 1985 Settlement.”
9. The other witness who deposed in support of the case of
the management was Domnic Rodrigues who was also a co-
worker. The witness stated that in the year 1985-86 he was also
working on the same stage in the Pre-Assembly Department of the
typewriter plant. The evidence of the witness was that in the Dog
Rocker Assembly stage certain norms of output were required to
be observed by the workman in every shift. The workman stated
that the norms which were filed at Exh. C-34 were the very norms
which were required to be observed. During the course of the
cross examination of the management's first witness a reference
was made by the witness to the job cards (pages 2 to 59 of Exh. C-
12) pertaining to the workman involved in the proceedings in the
present case. As the Labour Court noted, the job cards contained
a stipulation of 78 assemblies, being the required output.
10. In these circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
11
evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the finding
of misconduct was duly proved. The management's case was that
despite a cautionary warning on 22nd November, 1985, the
workman had persisted in failing to fulfill the required production
norms. After the management had adduced evidence in support of
the charge of misconduct before the Labour Court, the workman
chose not to step into the witness box at all having rested content
with the evidence which had been adduced at the Part I stage.
Even if, as counsel appearing for the workman submits, the
evidence of the workman at the Part I stage is taken into account, it
cannot be said that the workman had displaced the burden which
had shifted upon him after the management had satisfactorily
established the charge of misconduct before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court held that it was upon the request of the
workman himself that he should be assigned a light job that the
management had transferred him to the Pre-Assembly
Department. The allegation of the workman to the effect that he
was charge-sheeted because he had pointed out various defects in
the typewriters was held to be unproved. In a matter such as the
present, in the very nature of things this Court would be
transgressing the limitations which govern proceedings under
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
12
Article 226 by substituting its own appreciation of evidence for the
appreciation of evidence by the Labour Court. The submission that
the output norms were filed for the first time when the management
chose to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in support of
the charge of misconduct cannot be a circumstance which in itself
would vitiate the finding of the Labour Court. Ultimately the weight
to be ascribed to the production norms that were produced by the
management as well as the authenticity thereof were matters for
evaluation by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence on the
record. The Labour Court has considered the totality of the
evidence including the job cards of the workman himself which
show the output norm that was required was of 78 assemblies. At
this stage, it would neither be appropriate nor proper for the Court
to re-evaluate the appreciation of the evidence by the Labour
Court. Having regard to the evidence which has been discussed
earlier, it cannot be said that the present case belongs to that
category where the finding of misconduct can be assailed as being
based on no evidence at all. The Petition filed by the workman
must, therefore, fail.
11. Insofar as the Petition filed by the management is
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
13
concerned, the contention that has been urged before the Court is
that on the charge of misconduct having been held to be
established and the Labour Court having come to the conclusion
that the charge was serious, it was manifestly inappropriate for that
Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. The
submission that has been urged on behalf of the management is
well founded and will have to be accepted. In the present case the
charge of misconduct which is found to be established involves a
slowing down of production, willful insubordination and the
commission of an act subversive of the discipline. In a matter
involving a serious charge of misconduct, it is manifestly
inappropriate for the Labour Court to interfere. The Labour Court
seems to have formed the view that in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 11-A the Court is vested with benevolent
powers and that the Court would be justified in awarding
reinstatement so as not to seriously prejudice the future career of
the workman who was in his middle ages. The approach of the
Labour Court suffers from a clear perversity and is manifestly
contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the recent
judgment in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
14
1
Karnataka
the Supreme Court has observed thus :
“The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to
strike a balance between the earlier approach to the
industrial relations wherein only the interest of the
workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed
object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several
decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline
at the workplace/ industrial undertakings received a
setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the
country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees
to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is
governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be
taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this
Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, as
noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically
demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally
interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the
employers unless an appropriate case is made out
therefor. The Tribunal being inferior to this Court was
bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are
applicable to the facts of the present case in question.
The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by
this Court nor refuse to follow the same.”
12. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct and the
seriousness and the gravity of charges, the interference of the
Labour Court was clearly and manifestly inappropriate. In such a
case even if the past record of the workman is otherwise free from
blame, the seriousness of the misconduct will justify an order of
dismissal from service. The Petition filed by the management shall
accordingly have to be allowed.
1 (2006) 1 SCC 430.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
15
13. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition 754 of 2006 filed
by the management is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) by quashing and setting aside the award of the
Labour Court to the extent that the Labour Court, while interfering
with the punishment imposed by the management directed the
management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service.
14. Writ Petition 833 of 2006 filed by the workman shall
accordingly stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2006
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited
a company incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 and having its office
at Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli,
Mumbai 400 079. ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Suhas Hari Bhalerao
4/178, “Shivneri”,
Dadasaheb Phalke Marg, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 014. ..Respondent.
....
Mr. Ankit Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Mokashi for the Respondent.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2006
Suhas Hari Bhalerao
4/178, “Shivneri”,
Dadasaheb Phalke Marg, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 014. ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited
Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli,
Mumbai 400 079. ..Respondent.
...
Mr. P.M. Mokashi for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ankit Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent.
...
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
CORAM:
nd
22 February, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
2
1. On a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court, by its Part I award
dated 25th September, 2003 held that the disciplinary enquiry was
fair and proper but, that the finding of misconduct was perverse.
The management thereupon adduced evidence in support of the
charge of misconduct. The Labour Court by its award dated 19th
July, 2005 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct
was established on the basis of the evidence on the record and
that the charge was serious in nature. Nonetheless the Labour
Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service, though
without backwages by its award dated 19th July, 2005.
2. Both the workman and the management are in these
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the
award of the Labour Court.
3. The workman was initially employed with the
management with effect from 9th January, 1978 as a checker /
inspector in the Die-casting Department. Subsequently, the
workman was assigned to carry out inspection duties. Some time
in the year 1983-84 the workman had developed back pain and in
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
3
pursuance of his request the management assigned him to carry
out work in the Dog Rocker Assembly line. On 20th November,
1985 a letter of warning was addressed to the workman informing
him that while working on the Dog Rocker Assembly stage in the
Pre-Assembly department, the workman had not been able to fulfill
the normal output of the department despite the fact that several
months had passed since his new posting. The management
noted that the workman had on his request been assigned work of
a light nature which did not involve any bending and which could
be performed in a sitting position on a stool / chair with the job
provided on a work table. By its communication the management
stated that it would be compelled to take action according to law in
the event the workman fails to achieve the required production
norms.
4. On 3rd February, 1986 a charge sheet was issued to the
workman by which disciplinary proceedings were convened on the
allegation that between 22nd November, 1985 and 31st January,
1986 the workman had failed to give normal production, in
accordance with the established norms of production which
amounted to willful insubordination and /or willful slowing down of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
4
production, or a gross neglect in the performance of his duties.
The workman was informed that his persistent refusal to give
normal production was an act subversive of good behaviour within
the premises of the establishment and of the discipline of the
establishment. A chart detailing the production efficiency of the
workman for the period in question was contained in the charge
sheet. The chart indicated that over the period in question the
workman had rendered a production efficiency of between 49%
and 64% of the required norms. The workman was charge-
sheeted under Certified Standing Orders 22(1), 22(3), 22(12) and
22(13). A disciplinary enquiry was convened in which the workman
participated. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were duly
proved. Thereupon the workman was dismissed from service by
an order dated 22nd November, 1990.
5. Upon an industrial dispute being raised, the appropriate
government made a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court by its Part I
award dated 25th September, 2003 came to the conclusion that the
enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court was of the
view that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. On
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
5
behalf of the management evidence was adduced at the stage
prior to the Part I award. The workman also deposed in support of
his case. After the Part I award, the management adduced
evidence in support of the charge of misconduct, of two witnesses.
The first witness was Shri Mohmed Hanif Shaikh, who was the
supervisor in the typewriter plant and to whom the workman was
reporting in the Pre-Assembly Department. The second witness
who deposed in support of the case of the management was a co-
worker, Domnic Rodrigues. The Labour Court on the basis of the
evidence which was adduced by the management came to the
conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established. The
Labour Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence
that under the production norms that were stipulated by the
management, the workman was to fulfill a requirement of 78
assemblies, which he had consistently failed to achieve despite a
cautionary warning dated 20th November, 1985. Subsequently
though there was a settlement dated 10th March, 1985 by which
the existing norms were increased to the extent of 15%, the
workman had not consented thereto and hence the requirement
which he was due to fulfill was that of 78 assemblies as originally
stipulated. The Labour Court held that the job cards of the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
6
workman which were produced on the record clearly provided an
output requirement of 78 assemblies. The Labour Court therefore
found no substance in the contention of the workman that the norm
of 78 assemblies had not been communicated to him. In these
circumstances, the Labour Court was of the view that though the
workman had been assigned to a particular job on his own request,
he had been consistently unable to meet the output requirement
despite a caution issued by the management. The conduct of the
workman was held to be amounting to willful insubordination,
willful slowing down in the performance of the work and the
commission of an act subversive of good behaviour within the
premises of the establishment. The Labour Court held that this
was a serious act of misconduct. Nonetheless, the Court came to
the conclusion that in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the award of a lesser punishment
was required having regard to various mitigating circumstances.
An order of reinstatement was accordingly passed though without
backwages.
6. In the petition that has been filed by the workman (Writ
petition 833 of 2006) in order to impugn the award of the Labour
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
7
Court, it has been urged that at the initial stage, when the fairness
of the enquiry and perversity of findings were to be considered by
the Labour Court, the management as well as the workman had
adduced evidence. The evidence so adduced, it was submitted,
related to both the fairness of the enquiry and the charge of
misconduct. The learned counsel submitted that the production
norms came to be filed on the record only when evidence was
adduced by the management after the Part I award when the
management availed of the opportunity of substantiating the
charge of misconduct before the Labour Court. In these
circumstances, it was submitted that the Labour Court ought to
have considered the evidence of the management on merits even
at the Part I stage where initially the output norms had not been
produced and an adverse inference should have been drawn.
Secondly it was sought to be submitted that the norms which were
filed on the record when evidence was adduced by the
management after the Part I award stage was over would not
show that the required norm of 78 assemblies was expected to be
maintained by the workman. Thirdly it was submitted that the
management had not produced any data relating to the actual work
output of other workmen in the same department.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
8
7. In considering the tenability of the aforesaid challenge
that has been urged on behalf of the workman, it must be reiterated
that ordinarily it is for the disciplinary authority, in an enquiry into a
charge of misconduct to determine as to whether the charge has
been established on the basis of the evidence on the record. The
charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of
probabilities. Where the enquiry has been held to be vitiated or in
a situation where no enquiry has been held, it is now a well settled
principle of law that it is open to the management to seek an
opportunity of establishing the charge of misconduct independently
before the Labour Court. In the present case, the enquiry was held
to be fair and proper, but the Labour Court in the course of the
Part ?I award had held that the findings of the enquiry suffer from a
perversity. The management thereupon adduced evidence in
support of the charge of misconduct. The first witness who
deposed on behalf of the management was Mohmed Hanif Shaikh,
who was employed as a supervisor in the typewriter plant and to
whom the workman was reporting. At the material time when the
workman was transferred to the Pre-Assembly Department, he was
reporting to the witness. This aspect is not controverted. Exhibit
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
9
C-34 were the output norms which were proved through the
witness. The witness explained how the output norms were
calculated with reference to the operations that were involved in
the Dog Rocker B Assembly. The witness deposed as follows :
“I say that the combined norms for the Dog Rocker 'B'
Assembly and other operations mentioned hereinabove,
are fixed in a systematic and scientific manner based on
390 minutes (six and a half hours) working cycle for an 8
hours shift, excluding 30 minutes given for lunch recess.
It is pertinent to mention that the working cycle for the 8
hours shift for this stage, includes 360 minutes (six
hours) of actual time for operations and average 30
minutes (half an hour) for repairs, on the basis of which
the norms were liberally fixed. The balance time of 90
minutes (one and a half hours) was for breakfast, going
to wash-room, tea-break, etc.”
8. After furnishing a break up of the time allocated to each
of the operations, the witness deposed that 78 completed Dog
Rocker B assemblies were required to be produced defect free per
shift :
“I say that 4.6306818 minutes (0.3125 + 0.2556818 +
0.3125 + 3.75) are required to make on Dog Rocker 'B'
Assembly. On this basis, I, therefore say that for 360
minutes (six hours) the output would be 77.742331 Dog
Rocker 'B' Assemblies (i.e. 360/4.6306818 = 77.742331)
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
10
rounded off to 78 complete Dog Rocker 'B' Assemblies.
I, therefore, say that in an eight hour shift, a workman
was required to give the established production/ output
of 78 complete defect-free Dog Rocker Assemblies per
shift, prevailing prior to the 1985 Settlement.”
9. The other witness who deposed in support of the case of
the management was Domnic Rodrigues who was also a co-
worker. The witness stated that in the year 1985-86 he was also
working on the same stage in the Pre-Assembly Department of the
typewriter plant. The evidence of the witness was that in the Dog
Rocker Assembly stage certain norms of output were required to
be observed by the workman in every shift. The workman stated
that the norms which were filed at Exh. C-34 were the very norms
which were required to be observed. During the course of the
cross examination of the management's first witness a reference
was made by the witness to the job cards (pages 2 to 59 of Exh. C-
12) pertaining to the workman involved in the proceedings in the
present case. As the Labour Court noted, the job cards contained
a stipulation of 78 assemblies, being the required output.
10. In these circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
11
evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the finding
of misconduct was duly proved. The management's case was that
despite a cautionary warning on 22nd November, 1985, the
workman had persisted in failing to fulfill the required production
norms. After the management had adduced evidence in support of
the charge of misconduct before the Labour Court, the workman
chose not to step into the witness box at all having rested content
with the evidence which had been adduced at the Part I stage.
Even if, as counsel appearing for the workman submits, the
evidence of the workman at the Part I stage is taken into account, it
cannot be said that the workman had displaced the burden which
had shifted upon him after the management had satisfactorily
established the charge of misconduct before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court held that it was upon the request of the
workman himself that he should be assigned a light job that the
management had transferred him to the Pre-Assembly
Department. The allegation of the workman to the effect that he
was charge-sheeted because he had pointed out various defects in
the typewriters was held to be unproved. In a matter such as the
present, in the very nature of things this Court would be
transgressing the limitations which govern proceedings under
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
12
Article 226 by substituting its own appreciation of evidence for the
appreciation of evidence by the Labour Court. The submission that
the output norms were filed for the first time when the management
chose to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in support of
the charge of misconduct cannot be a circumstance which in itself
would vitiate the finding of the Labour Court. Ultimately the weight
to be ascribed to the production norms that were produced by the
management as well as the authenticity thereof were matters for
evaluation by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence on the
record. The Labour Court has considered the totality of the
evidence including the job cards of the workman himself which
show the output norm that was required was of 78 assemblies. At
this stage, it would neither be appropriate nor proper for the Court
to re-evaluate the appreciation of the evidence by the Labour
Court. Having regard to the evidence which has been discussed
earlier, it cannot be said that the present case belongs to that
category where the finding of misconduct can be assailed as being
based on no evidence at all. The Petition filed by the workman
must, therefore, fail.
11. Insofar as the Petition filed by the management is
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
13
concerned, the contention that has been urged before the Court is
that on the charge of misconduct having been held to be
established and the Labour Court having come to the conclusion
that the charge was serious, it was manifestly inappropriate for that
Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. The
submission that has been urged on behalf of the management is
well founded and will have to be accepted. In the present case the
charge of misconduct which is found to be established involves a
slowing down of production, willful insubordination and the
commission of an act subversive of the discipline. In a matter
involving a serious charge of misconduct, it is manifestly
inappropriate for the Labour Court to interfere. The Labour Court
seems to have formed the view that in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 11-A the Court is vested with benevolent
powers and that the Court would be justified in awarding
reinstatement so as not to seriously prejudice the future career of
the workman who was in his middle ages. The approach of the
Labour Court suffers from a clear perversity and is manifestly
contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the recent
judgment in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
14
1
Karnataka
the Supreme Court has observed thus :
“The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to
strike a balance between the earlier approach to the
industrial relations wherein only the interest of the
workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed
object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several
decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline
at the workplace/ industrial undertakings received a
setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the
country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees
to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is
governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be
taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this
Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, as
noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically
demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally
interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the
employers unless an appropriate case is made out
therefor. The Tribunal being inferior to this Court was
bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are
applicable to the facts of the present case in question.
The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by
this Court nor refuse to follow the same.”
12. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct and the
seriousness and the gravity of charges, the interference of the
Labour Court was clearly and manifestly inappropriate. In such a
case even if the past record of the workman is otherwise free from
blame, the seriousness of the misconduct will justify an order of
dismissal from service. The Petition filed by the management shall
accordingly have to be allowed.
1 (2006) 1 SCC 430.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::
15
13. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition 754 of 2006 filed
by the management is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) by quashing and setting aside the award of the
Labour Court to the extent that the Labour Court, while interfering
with the punishment imposed by the management directed the
management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service.
14. Writ Petition 833 of 2006 filed by the workman shall
accordingly stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:54 :::