MANAGEMENT OF S R P TOOL LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an award of the Labour Court, Madras dated July 9, 1973 made in I. D. No. 12 of 1972, Respondents 2 to 4 herein were employees of the petitioner herein. As required by Section 45 of the factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner had provided a canteen. As provided by the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950, among others the canteen is being run by the Workers' Co-operative Societies Act. On July 30, 1971, respondents 2 to 4 herein were said to have behaved in a riotous manner in the kitchen of the canteen at 4-12 p. m. , in that they unauthorisedly entered the kitchen to man-handle, abuse in vulgar language and attempt to assault one Vembiah, an employee of the canteen. Charges were framed against three of the persons concerned and a domestic enquiry was held on August 13, 1971. As a result of the domestic enquiry all the three workmen concerned were dismissed on August 24. 1971. This dismissal gave rise to an industrial dispute and that dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Madras for adjudication by the Government in C. O. R. 190 Labour Department, dated January 25, 1972. The Labour Court, by the impugned award, came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held on August 13, 1971 was according to all the known principles of natural justice. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Labour Court in its award held that the dismissal of the workmen was not legal and they were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant benefits due to them. This conclusion of the Labour Court was arrived at on the basis that the incident of July 30, 1971 took place in the kitchen of the canteen which was not within the factory premises of the petitioner herein and, therefore, the disciplinary jurisdiction of the petitioner did not extend to the incident that took place on July 30, 1971. It is to quash this award of the labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) AS I pointed out already, the Labour Court held in favour of the petitioner in so far as it came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held on August 13, 1971 was according to all known principles of natural justice. However, the parties argued the other question, viz. , whether the dismissal of respondents 2 to 4 herein in relation to an incident that took place in the kitchen was within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the petitioner or not, purely as a question of law, without adducing any evidence in this behalf. The labour Court pointed out that the petitioner had not proved that the canteen premises were within the works premises of the management and that if the case of the petitioner was that the canteen premises were within the works premises, it could have easily proved the same by the production of the factory plan and also the canteen plan approved by the factory inspector and the licence granted under the Act, and that the petitioner had not done so. On the other hand, the Labour Court held that the workers did not require the permission of the management for going to the canteen and that itself established that the canteen was outside the premises of the factory. With reference to these findings, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that Standing Order No. 15 (j) of Ex. M-11 of the petitioner did not cover the particular act of respondents 2 to 4 and consequently respondents 2 to 4 herein could not have been dismissed for their alleged misconduct at the canteen premises.

(3.) FOR the purposes of considering the validity of this conclusion of the Labour Court, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties. In the claim petition filed on behalf of the workmen, among others, it was stated in paragraph 7 (e):-