Telangana High Court
M/S. Tata Sikorsky Aerospace Limited vs V. Gangadhar Rao on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.Nos. 10224, 10216, 5868, 11092, 11093, 11094,
11095, 11096, 11100, 11101, 11103, 11104, 11105, 11106,
11107, 11108, 12142, 12143, 12144, 12145, 12146, 12147,
12148, 12149, 12150, 12151, 12152, 12153, 12154, 12155,
12156, 12157, 12159, 12160, 14625, 14627, 14629 &
14630 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
In these writ petitions, petitioner management is seeking a writ of certiorari, to quash and set aside the common order passed by the Labour Court-1, Hyderabad dated 18.02.2021 in the interlocutory applications filed in the batch of ID's filed by the workmen of the petitioner company, such as in I.A.No.18 of 2021, I.A.No.143 of 2019, I.A.No.71 of 2021 & I.A.No.150 of 2021 in I.D.No.73 of 2017, dated 18.02.2021, allowing the amendment of Claim petition, receipt of additional documents and evidence on record as bad in law, in the interest of justice, equality and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
Similar orders have been challenged in the other Writ Petitions which are forming part of this batch.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are that the respondents were all employees of the petitioner company. On the ground that the workmen were 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch unauthorizedly absent for a period of ten to sixteen days, the petitioner company has initiated disciplinary proceedings against some of the workmen. Out of 500 employees, who abstained from duties, for the charges of unauthorized absence, some were let off with deduction of 18 days wages, while 100 employees were charge sheeted, while some others were let off with minor punishment of with-holding two annual increments and continuity of service and some others were removed from service. The workmen, who have been removed from service therefore, filed IDs before the Labour Court challenging the removal order and during the pendency of ID, the petitioner in W.P.No.5868 of 2021 has filed I.A.No.143 of 2019 to condone the delay and permit certain documents (as per the list enclosed there with) to be brought on record. The said I.A., was filed on 15.07.2019 and thereafter, the Labour Court has considered the contentions of both parties about the validity of domestic enquiry and has upheld the validity of domestic enquiry. It is thereafter that the Tribunal has taken up I.A.No.143 of 2019 and also I.A.No.18 of 2021 which was filed by the respondents workmen to amend the claim petition, I.A.No.71 of 2021 to adduce additional evidence and I.A.No.150 of 2021 to adduce two more documents.
3
TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch
3. The Management has raised objections to said I.As., on the ground that since the domestic enquiry has been held to be valid, the workmen cannot now lead any new evidence on record as it is barred by the Proviso to Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Management had also relied upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their contentions. However, the Labour Court has allowed the I.As., by way of a common order dated 18.02.2021. The Management has thus, challenged the orders dated 18.02.2021 by filing the present writ petitions and vide interim order dated 30.06.2021, the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Labour Court was suspended. However, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that an interim order of any Court shall be in force for a period of six months only unless extended by the Court, and since the interim order dated 18.02.2021 was not extended by this court, the Labour Court proceeded with the matter and examined the witnesses and marked documents as W1 to W29 and the matter is now stated to be posted for arguments.
1 (2018)16 SCC 299 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management, while reiterating the above submissions, submitted that the Proviso to Section 11(A) of the ID Act prohibits bringing on record of any new material, unless the Tribunal or Labour Court has held the domestic enquiry to be not valid. It is submitted that in cases where domestic enquiry has been held to be not validly conducted, it is for the management employer to lead the evidence and it is in such circumstances that the employee also gets an opportunity to file evidence contrary to the evidence of the employer. It is submitted that in this case, the employee has not challenged the order of the Labour Court upholding the validity of domestic enquiry and therefore, it is the workmen who are precluded from filing any applications for bringing on record any fresh material.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to following case laws in support of his contentions:
(1) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Vs. Ludh Budh Singh 2, for the proposition that it is only where the 2 (1972) 1 SCC 595 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch preliminary issue is decided against the management that the employer can be given an opportunity to file additional evidence and also to give similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence per contra.
(2) The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Pvt.,) Limited Vs. The Management & Others 3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the power of the Tribunal to interfere with its finding of misconduct recorded in the domestic enquiry unless one or other infirmities as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, existed and it was held that the earlier the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to be an inference of victimization or unfair labour practice, but after insertion of Section 11(A), the position is that the employer is entitled to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal even if he had held no enquiry or the enquiry held by him is found to be defective. It is thereafter that an opportunity will have to be given to the workman to lead evidence contra. It was further observed that even after introduction of Section 11(A), the employer as well as the 3 (1973) 1 SCC 813 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch employee can adduce evidence regarding the legality or validity of the domestic enquiry, if one had been held by an employer. Further in the case of The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Pvt.,) Limited (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of the Proviso to Section 11(A) of the Act and has held that expression "materials on record", occurring in the proviso, cannot be confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry, but they also take in:
(1) the evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and the proceedings of the enquiry, or (2) the above evidence and in addition, any further evidence led before the Tribunal, or (3) evidence placed before the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by an employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workmen contra.
It was held that the expression fresh evidence has to be read in the context in which it appears namely, as distinguished from the expression materials on record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the Proviso only emphasizes that the Tribunal has to satisfy itself one way or the other regarding misconduct, the punishment and the relief to be granted to workmen only on the basis of the 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch materials on record before it and what those materials comprise of have been mentioned earlier and the Tribunal for the purposes referred to above, cannot call for further or fresh evidence, as an appellate authority may normally do under a particular statute, when considering the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a subordinate body and the matter in the proviso refers to the order of discharge or dismissal that is being considered by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Others 4 and also in the case Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lakshmidevamma (SMT) & Another 5, though the facts and circumstances in the said case are distinguishable, therefore, according to him, the reliance on these decisions to grant relief and in allowing the petitions filed by the workman is misplaced. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order of the Labour Court in all the I.As., is liable to be set aside.
4 (1976) 1 SCC 518 5 (2001) 5 SCC 433 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch
8. Learned counsel for the workman, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner management had resorted to victimization only because the workman had formed into a Union and the management wanted to suppress the unity of the workman. He tried to bring out the instances where 500 workmen had abstained from duties, but only few workmen have been punished with punishment of removal from service, whereas others were let off with lesser punishments or let off with only deducting their salaries for a period of eighteen days. It is submitted that as soon as the respondents were removed from service, the IDs were filed challenging the removal orders and subsequently, when the petitioners realized that the management has resorted to victimization and differential treatment was given to different employees, the petitioners have gathered the information and have filed I.A.No.143/2019 to permit documents to be taken on record only to demonstrate the victimization. It is submitted that though the petition has been filed prior to the order validating the domestic enquiry, the said petition was taken up subsequent thereto, but the said circumstances alone cannot determine the power of the Tribunal to admit additional documents which are only in relation to the issue involved in the ID. It is submitted that the 9 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch documents filed by the workmen were only in relation to the issue of victimization and no new facts have been brought on record and therefore, it is part of material on record. He submitted that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the powers of the Tribunal in allowing the material to be brought on record only for protecting the workmen from the unfair labour practice adopted by the management and it was in these lines that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Bharat Iron Works (cited supra) and also in the case of Management of SBI Vs. Industrial Tribunal-1 has been considered. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the workmen, the orders of the Labour Court are justified and no interference is called for.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal under Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act is prohibited from entertaining the evidence filed by the workmen after filing of the ID. In this case the workmen have been removed from service on the ground of an unauthorized absence for a period of 10 days. In the ID's, the workmen have raised the ground of unfair 10 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch labour practice, but could not file the relevant documents along with the ID. It is subsequent to the filing of the ID and before hearing of the parties on the validity of the domestic enquiry, that the I.A.No.143/2021 has been filed to bring the documents on record. The Proviso to Section 11(A) prohibits bringing on record any fresh evidence other than the material on record.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Pvt.,) Limited (cited supra), has clearly brought out as to what is to be considered as "material on record" and what is "fresh evidence"? For the purpose of ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are re-produced here under:
'48-49. We are not inclined to accept the above contention of Mr.Deshmukh. The Proviso specifies matters which the Tribunal shall take into account as also matters which it shall not. The expression 'materials on record', occurring in the Proviso, in our opinion, cannot be confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, the 'materials on record' in the Proviso must be held to refer to materials on record before the Tribunal. They take in-
(1) the evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and the proceedings of the enquiry, or (2) the above evidence and in addition, any further evidence led before the Tribunal, or (3) evidence placed before the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by an employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workmen contra.
The above items by and large should be considered to be the 'materials on record' as specified in the Proviso. We are not inclined to limit that expression as meaning only that material that has been placed in a domestic enquiry. 11
TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch The Proviso only confines the Tribunal to the materials on record before it as specified above, when considering the justification or otherwise of the order of discharge or dismissal. It is only on the basis of these materials that the Tribunal is obliged to consider whether the misconduct is proved and the further question whether the proved misconduct justifies the punishment of dismissal or discharge. It also prohibits the Tribunal from taking any fresh evidence either for satisfying itself regarding the misconduct or for altering the punishment. From the Proviso it is not certainly possible to come to the conclusion that when once it is held that an enquiry has not been held or is found to be defective, an order reinstating the workman will have to be made by the Tribunal. Nor does it follow that the Proviso deprives an employer of his right to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal. The expression 'fresh evidence' has to be read in the context in which it appears namely, as distinguished from the expression 'materials on record'. If so read, the Proviso does not present any difficulty at all.
50. The legislation in Section 11-A has made a departure in certain respects in the law as laid down by this Court. For the first time, power has been given to a Tribunal to satisfy itself whether misconduct is proved. This is particularly so, as already pointed out by us, regarding even findings arrived at by an employer in an enquiry properly held. The Tribunal has also been given power, also for the first time, to interfere with the punishment imposed by an employer. When such wide powers have been now conferred on Tribunals, the legislature obviously felt that some restrictions have to be imposed regarding what matters could be taken into account. Such restrictions are found in the Proviso. The Proviso only emphasises that the Tribunal has to satisfy itself one way or other regarding misconduct, the punishment and the relief to be granted to workmen only on the basis of the 'materials on record' before it. What those materials comprise of have been mentioned earlier. The Tribunal for the purposes referred to above, cannot call for further or fresh evidence, as an appellate authority may normally do under a particular statute, when considering the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a subordinate body. The 'matter' in the Proviso refers to the order of discharge or dismissal that is being considered by the Tribunal.' 12 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch Further in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (cited supra), the Delhi High Court has also observed as under:
61. From the above decisions the following principles broadly emerge -
(1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management.
But, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will be, that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the domestic Tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.
13
TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch
11. In the batch of these cases, it is observed that the Tribunal has already upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management and therefore, the Tribunal has to necessarily go into merits of the order of verdict passed by the management. It is in these circumstances, that the respondent employees have filed applications for taking on record, the additional documents which were come to their knowledge after filing of the IDs. The Labour Court has considered all the relevant judicial precedents on issue and also the legal position i.e., proviso of Section 11(A) of ID Act before allowing the claim petition and has allowed to bring on record the relevant documents. In the order upholding the validity of the proceedings, the Tribunal could not have gone into the merits of the issue and it is only in the subsequent proceedings that the Tribunal/Labour Court will go into the merits of the issue and the documents now filed by the respondent workmen are in respect of merits of the issue and therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the documents to be brought on record. The petitioner management will get an opportunity to rebut or reply to the documents filed by the petitioners being taken on record 14 TMD,J W.P.No. 10224 of 2021 & batch by the Labour Court during the subsequent proceedings and hence there is no violation of the principles of Natural Justice and no prejudice, what-so-ever is caused to the management by the above order of the Labour Court.
12. With these remarks, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions filed by the management.
13. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 03.06.2024 bak