2008 (2) TMI 864 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court so far as reinstatement of the respondent-workman is acceptable? Whether the direction issued by the Labour Court to the appellant- Corporation to pay back wages to the respondent workman with interest thereon as confirmed by the High Court is acceptable? Whether the respondent-workman will be treated in continuous service and will be entitled to consequential benefits on setting aside of dismissal order but is held not entitled to back wages for the period for which he has not worked?

Summary

Issues:
1. Termination of services based on disciplinary proceedings.
2. Fairness of the enquiry process.
3. Application of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Award of back wages and consequential benefits.

Termination of services based on disciplinary proceedings:
The respondent-workman, a driver with a transport corporation, faced disciplinary action for unauthorized absence and other charges. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the respondent failed to participate effectively in the enquiry process. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, leading to the termination of the workman's services. The subsequent legal battle resulted in the workman's reinstatement, with liberty granted to the Corporation to conduct a fresh enquiry. The Corporation proceeded with a second enquiry, which also ended in dismissal. The workman challenged this action, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Fairness of the enquiry process:
The appellant Corporation argued that the enquiry was fair and in accordance with the law, emphasizing the workman's lack of cooperation during the proceedings. The Court noted that the workman had opportunities to participate, but his deliberate absence led to an ex parte enquiry. The Court found that the charges of unauthorized absence were established, and the enquiry was conducted fairly. The Labour Court's finding of unfairness was deemed baseless, as it was the workman's failure to avail opportunities that hindered the process.

Application of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Labour Court invoked Section 11A of the Act, considering the workman's misconduct in remaining absent without sanctioned leave. The Court upheld this decision, deeming the dismissal disproportionate to the offense. The High Court also found no fault with this aspect of the award. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that interference was unwarranted under Article 136 of the Constitution. The workman's reinstatement based on the Section 11A application was upheld as justified.

Award of back wages and consequential benefits:
The Court, however, found fault with the Labour Court's decision to award full back wages with interest to the workman. Given the workman's non-cooperation during the enquiry, the Court held that back wages were not warranted. The Corporation was not obligated to pay back wages due to the workman's failure to participate effectively in the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the direction for back wages, while affirming the reinstatement and entitlement to other consequential benefits for the workman.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the reinstatement of the workman but overturning the award of back wages. The Court emphasized the workman's responsibility to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings and held that non-cooperation justified the denial of back wages. The Corporation was directed to treat the workman in continuous service and provide other consequential benefits, excluding back wages for the period of non-cooperation.