LexPALGHAT BPL AND PSP THOZHILALI UNION versus BPL INDIA LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PALGHAT BPL AND PSP THOZHILALI UNION v. BPL INDIA LTD. AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 B (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Industrial Law : CompanJ-Standing order-Clause 39(h)-lnterpretation of Mis- con- C duct-What amounts to-Held assault on officers of Management outside factory is misconduct. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 11-A. Punishment-Quantum of-Power of court to modify-Dismissal D order-Setting aside of by Labour Court-Directions to reinstate with only 25% of back wages-Held on facts justified. E During strike by the workmen of the appellant-Union, three of its workmen threw stones and assaulted officers of the respondent-Company at a bus-stop outside the premises of the company. They were issued charge-sheets for their mis-conduct under clause 39(h) of the Standing Orders of the Company. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, which was submitted ex-parte, the workmen were dismissed from services. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workmen with only 25% of back wages. A single Judge of the High Court set aside the award of the F Labour Court and a Division Bench affirmed the order of the single Judge. In the meanwhile after the judgment of the single Judge, the appellants were dismissed from service on November 3, 1989. In appeal to this Court it was contended that the alleged acts of the appellants were not miscon- duct within the meaning of Clause 39(h) of the certified S~nding Orders G of the Company and that the findings of the High Court are illegal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. A reading of clause 39(h) of the Standing Orders of Company indicates that drunkness, riotous or disorderly behaviour during H working hours within the premises of the Company is misconduct. The 406 PALGHATBPLANDPSPTHOZHILALIUNION v. BPLINDIALID. 407 second part thereof indicates that any act subversive of discipline com- A milted either within or outside the premises of the Company is also mis- conduct. Any act unrelatable to the service committed outside the factory would not amount to misconduct. But when a misconduct vis-a-vis the officers of the management is committed outside the factory, certainly the same would be an act subversive of discipline. The object appears to be that workmen need to maintain discipline vis-a-vis its management. What amounts to misconduct is a question of fact. It would be decided with reference to t,he facts, the situation in which the act was alleged to have been committed and the attending circumstances leading thereto. [409-B-D] B 2. The Labour Court had discretion under Section 11-A of the In- C dustrial Disputes Act to consider the quantum of misconduct and the punishment. In view of the surging circumstances, viz. the workmen were agitating by their collective bargain for acceptance of their demands and when the strike was ·on, the settlement during conciliation proceedings, though initially agreed to, was resiled later on. They appear to have attack- ed the officers when they were going to the factory. Further, the appellants D alone were not members of the assembly of the workmen standing at the bus stop. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was well justified in taking lenient view and setting aside the order of dismissal and giving direction to reinstate the workmen with a cut of 75% of the back wages upto the date of the award. The management is directed to reinstate the appel- E lants into service forthwith. However, if the appellants were gainfully employed from November 3, 1989 till date, the management would be en- titled not to pay full back wages. That would be a matter to be decided by the Labour Court. [ 409-E-H, 410-A] It is directed to decide that question. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8384 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.90 of the Kerala High F Court in W.P. No. 475 of 1990. G L.J. Vadakara for the Appellant. N.B. Shetye, O.C. Mathur and D.N. Mishra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : H • 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Leave granted. B c The appellant is a trade union espousing the cause of three workmen, viz., V. Rajamanicham, N. Raghavan and M. Prabhakaran. The undisputed facts are that while the workmen were on strike, the management suddenly backed out from the settlement in reconciliation proceedings. As a conse- quence, the workmen started. strike. On M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.