LexCOLOUR-CHEM LTD. versus A.L. ALASPURKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COLOUR-CHEM LTD.
A
v.
A.L. ALASPURKAR AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 5, 1998
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.]
B
Labour Law:
Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV Item I (g)-Unfair labour practice- C
Scope of-Workman found guilty of major misconduct of sleeping while on
duty keeping the machine in a working condition-Held: Sch IV Item I (g)
deals with misconduct of a minor or technical character and does not cover
major misconduct, even after taking into account the nature of misconduct
or past record of service of the employee if it is found by the court that the
punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charge held proved D
'A
against the employee-The .comma after the words "misconduct of a minor
or technical character" cannot be read as "or"-In the circumstances of the
case, Sch. IV Item I (g) not attracted.
"'·
Schedule JV Item I (g)-Victimisation:_Meaning of-Victimisation in
fact and Victimisation in law explained.
E
Schedule IV Item I (g)-Victimisation-Plant Operators along with JO
mazdoors found sleeping at 3.30 a.m. keeping the machine in a working
condition without pouring raw material therein-Delinquent Plant Operators
dismissed from service for a major misconduct-Held: Having regard to the
nature of misconduct, even if it is a major misconduct, and the past record F
of the employees, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate
or is such which no reasonable employer would ever impose it in like
circumstances-Hence, such a punishment amounts to unfair labour practice
of legal victimisation-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946--Jndustrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Misconduct-Workman sleeping while on duty keeping the machine in
a working condition-Punishment of dismissal from service-Management
raised plea of losing confidence in such workman-Labour Court reinstated
workman 3 and 4 with 40% and 50% back wages respectively till the date
G
of award and 100% till actual reinstatement-Held: The work which the
workman were doing was not of any confidential nature-Hence, the question H
663
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 1 S.C.R.
A of the management losing confidence in the workman does not arise-
Punishment of dismissal from service shockingly disproportionate-labour
Court quite justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service-
But in view of the gravity of misconduct the workman deserve to be further
punished-Hence, even after the award of the labour Court instead of 100%
B hack wages only 40% and 50% wages directed to be paid to workman 3 and
4 respectively till actual reinstatement pursuant to present order of the
Supreme Court.
Interpretation of Statues:
Welfare Legislation-Provisions-Two constructions-Possibility of-
C Held: If two constructions are reasonably possible, that which furthers the
policy and object of the Act and which is more beneficial to the employees
has to he preferred-But if the provision is capable of only one construction
plain meaning has to he given effect to.
D Words and Phrases :
"Victimisation "-Meaning of-In the context of Sch. IV Item 1 (g) of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair labour
Practices Act, 1971.
E
Respondent nos. 3 and 4 were working in the plant of the appellant-
eompany as Plant Operators. At about 03.30. a.m. when they were on duty
in the night shift, the Plant-i'1-Charge, on a suf!lrise visit, found res1>ondent
nos. 3. and 4 and 10 mazdoors as well as the Shift Supervisor sleeping
though the machine was kept working. For the said misconduct a domestic
F enquiry was held after which both these respondents were dismissed from
service. Respondent nos. 3. and 4 filed complaints before respondent no. 2-
authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971. The contention
of these complainants was that they were victimised and the appellant-
management had committed diverse unfair practices as contemplated under
G Clauses (a), {b), {d), (f) and (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act.
The Labour Court held that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had committed
misconduct alleged against them. However, the Labour Comi found that
looking to the nature of the misconduct alleged and proved against the
complainants the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly
H disproportionate and therefoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.