- (1.) By the impugned award of the Labour Court dated 9.11.1996 three workmen working in the Bata India had been terminated from service. The award was a confirmation of the decision of the Management to terminate the service on alleged proof of misconduct following a domestic enquiry. The charge against the workmen was that they had stopped a Vehicle going towards the factory, dragged out of the vehicle two of the fellow workmen with a view to prevent them from going into the factory and when they resisted, they were severely assaulted with lathi causing head injuries.
(2.) When the Management had, after obtaining a finding of proof of misconduct by the workmen, decided to dismiss the workmen form service, the workmen had sought for a reference to the Labour Court, which held that the enquiry had been conducted in a fair and proper manner and while adverting to the evidence let in before the Court held that the workmen were not entitled to any favourable consideration and affirmed the decision taken by the Management. The case also had an earlier history viz., when the Management had taken a decision to terminate their services and applied to the Labour Court for permission under Section 33(2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the pendency of some dispute in relation of the workmen, originally the permission had been refused by the Labour Court. This was challenged by the Management through a writ petition. Among the objections that had been taken by the workmen were, inter alia that the person who framed the charge sheet was not empowered to do so, he being not the competent authority himself. The Labour Court found that there was not proof for such a contention and also held that the order of dismissal had been passed only by the competent authority and no prejudice had been shown even if it were to be extended that the charge sheet had been framed by a person who was not the authority. The decision of the High Court was also affirmed in S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) The Validity of the award and the validity of the decision of the Management to terminate the service have been challenged on the following grounds : i) the charge sheet had not been framed by person who was competent to do so and therefore the entire proceeding before the enquiry officer was vitiated. ii) At the initial stage when the alleged incident was reported to the police the names of some other workmen had not been set out in the F.I.R. and even the criminal case that was prosecuted on the basis of the F.I.R. narrating the alleged incident resulted in acquittal. The contention was therefore that the case had not been made out; iii) The misconduct attributed to the workman was a incident outside the factory and the Housing colony of persons working with the Company and therefore it could not be taken as falling within enumerated misconduct in the standing orders; iv) the Labour Court had not exercised the powers under Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act and the punishment of the dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the incident; iv) The workmen had also not been granted monetary benefits which were entitled to.;