B.R.
Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1989] INSC 291
(26 September 1989)
Ahmadi,
A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Shetty, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 257 1989 SCC (4) 710 JT 1989 (4) 21 1989 SCALE
(2)697
ACT:
Constitution
of India---Articles 19(1)(c) and 32--Workmen
of Trade Fair Authority of India----Dismissal of--Whether legal.
Industrial
Disputes Act 1947--Sections 10(3), 10A (4A), 22 & 23--Whether attracted.
Trade
Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rule
32--Whether properly applied.
HEAD NOTE:
Trade
Fair Authority of India Employees' Union
had been demanding from the management
(i) housing
facilities for the employees;
(ii) regularisation
of at least 50% of casual or daily rated employees and
(iii) upward
revision of the salaries and allowances of the workers.
These
demands were discussed by the Union with the
management from time to time but nothing concrete except assurances emerged. On
October 29, 1986, the Union wrote to the General Manager seeking implementation of the
assurances not later than November 15, 1986.
It was also communicated that the workers would proceed on one day's token
strike on 13.11.86, if no action was taken. In response thereto the General
Manager only assured the Union representatives that the Standing Committee
which was seized of the matter, would be requested to take up the matter on
priority basis but things remained standstill till the end of November 1986 and
the reminders sent thereafter also did not yeild the desired result. Thereupon
on January 15, 1987 the Union sought permission to hold the general body meeting on
19.1.87 during lunch interval and in anticipation of the grant of such
permission issued notices of the meeting to the members. The General Manager
however declined to grant the necessary permission. But the General Body
Meeting of the Union was held as scheduled and a
decision was taken to strike work on 21.1.1987 aS a protest. The management was
put on notice, which reacted by suspending the President, Vice President &
other Executive Members of the Union. WOrkers'
demand for withdrawal of the orders of suspension was rejected. Instead all the
remaining office bearers & leading activists were suspended. These
suspended employees have filed a writ petition 258 challenging their
suspension.
During
the strike some workers attended duty while some others gave undertaking in the
prescribed form; all such workers were allowed to work but others who refused
to sign the Undertaking but reported for work were denied employmentEfforts to
solve the unemployment problem of such employees having failed, they too have
filed a writ petition seeking necessary relief.
By its
order of March 3, 1987 the management terminated the services of all the 12
office bearers under Rule 32 of the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees
(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1977 without holding a departmental
inquiry as contemplated by Rules 27 to 29 of the Rules.
According
to the management the reason for not holding the inquiry was that the workers
had terrorised & intimidated not only the Disciplinary Authority but also
the witnesses and an atmosphere of violence, general in discipline and
insubordination was created, as a result of which it was not practicable to
hold the inquiry. These dismissed employees have also filed a Writ Petition.
One Raju,
a casual laborer of TFAI since 1982, was selected on July 4, 1986 as a Mini-stiller Driver. He joined
the new post on the same day but his appointment was cancelled without assigning
any reason and he was reverted as a daily wager. He too had joined the others
for regularisation of his service and has taken part in the strike. His
services were terminated on December 1, 1986
without any inquiry. He too has filed a Writ Petition challenging the action of
the management.
Another
Writ Petition has been filed by two daily-rated Security Guards of TFAI whose
services were terminated, even though they had remained on duty during the
strike. Their contention is that they were dismissed as they refused to falsely
implicate their co-workers who had espoused their cause. They urge their's was
a case of victimisation.
In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the management, it was urged that as the
petitions require collection and adjudication of facts, the petitioners should
be relegated to the Industrial Tribunal or the concerned High Court. On merits,
it was contended that the office bearers of the Union had created an atmosphere
of violence and had paralysed the smooth running of the TFAI from November 1986
onwards; the officials being terrified were unable to function; that the union
held the meeting even though permission was refused for the purpose; that
provocative speeches undermining discipline were made 259 at the meeting, and that
the ultimate termination of the services was motivated, nor coercive. As the
strike neither was prolonged, the management was forced to make alternative
arrangements including those of the security as the President of India was to
inaugurate AHARA-1987 on January
25, 1987 and foreign
VIPs were expected to visit the Pragati Maidan. To ensure proper security, the
management was even forced to file a suit and obtain an injuction from the High
Court restraining the union members from preventing and obstructing the entry
of delegates, guests & dignitaries into Pragati Maidan.
Likewise
the management sought to defend its action in regard to casual labour by saying
that 85 posts were considered necessary for regularisation and the matter was
pending with the Standing Committee. It was denied that the management was not
sympathetic. On similar grounds the action taken by the management against Raju
and the two security guards were sought to be justified.
When
the Petitions reached hearing, the Court directed the Delhi Administration to
spare the services of a Judge of the Labour Court to look into the facts of these cases and transmit his
report to this Court. The concerned Judge considered the facts of each case
after giving full opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the parties
and thereafter submitted his report to this Court. On most of the issues
involved the Judge found in favour of the workmen.
Allowing
the Writ Petitions with directions this Court,
HELD:
The right to form association or Unions is a fundamental right under Article
19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The necessity to form unions is obviously for
voicing the demands and grievances of labour. The trade unionists act as
mouthpieces of labour, [270A-B] Strike in a given situation is only a form of
demonstration, e.g. go-slow. sit-in-work to rule absentism etc.
Strike
is one such mode of demonstration by workers for their rights. The right to
demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury
of the workers. This right is recognised by almost all Democratic Countries.
But the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and
restrictions have been placed on it by section 10(3), 10A (4A), 22 and 23 the
Industrial Disputes Act. These provisions, however, have no application to the
present case since it is no body's contention that the Union's demands had been referred to any forum under the
statute. Though there were angry protests and 260 efforts to obstruct the
officers from entering the precincts of TFAI there was no convincing evidence
of use of force of violence. [270C-F] Although TFAI was sympathetic to regularisation
of service of the casual workers, since the proposal had to pass through
various levels it was not possible to take an early decision in the matter. In
their frustration workers decided to put pressure by proceeding on strike.
During the strike certain events happened which were avoidable but nothing
destructive meaning thereby damaging the property of TFAI took place. [271H;
272A] So far as the case of security guard Vipti Singh is concerned, we are
constrained to say that the material on record does disclose that he had signed
the attendance register showing his presence from March 23, 1987 to March
29, 1987, even though
he was in fact absent on those days.
His
explanation in this behalf is far from convincing. The ends of justice would be
met if his re-instatement without back wages is directed. [273B-C] In the case
of Raju, the action of the management must be held to be penal in nature and
cannot be sustained as it was taken without hearing the delinquent, [273D]
Keeping in view the interest both of the labour and the institution, the Court
directed that the management will prepare a list of casual-daily-rated workers
who were its employees prior to the strike on January 21. 1987 in accordance
with their seniority, if such a list does not exist.
TFAI
will provide them work on the same basis on which they were given work prior to
the strike. After the seniority list is prepared TFAI will absorb 85 of the seniormost
casual workers in regular employment pending finalisation of the regularisation
scheme. TFAI will complete the regularisation process within a period of 3
months from to-day. TFAI will determine the number of casual employees who
would have been employed had they not proceeded on strike. The wages payable to
such casual employees had they been employed for the period of 6 months
immediately preceding the date of this order will be worked out on the basis of
actual labour employed and the amount so worked out will be distributed amongst
the casual employees who report for work in the next three months after TFAI
resumes work to casual labour. Peon Umed Singh, Security Guard Bansi Dhar and
Driver Raju will also be re-instated in service forthwith. They too will be
paid back wages (less suspension allowance, if any) for a period of six months
immediately preceding this order. So far as Driver Raju is concerned he 261
will be absorbed in regular service as per the offer made in the letter of July 25, 1987. The Security Guard Vipti Singh
will also be re-instated in service but without back wages.
In the
case of the 12 dismissed workers the circumstances did not exist for the
exercise of extraordinary powers under Rule 32 of the Rules. The orders
terminating the service of the 12 union representatives are therefore set aside
and they are ordered to be retained in service forthwith with hack wages
covering a period of six months immediately preceding the date of this order.
They should be reinstated forthwith. [273E-H; 274A-B] TFAI to pay Rs.5,000 by
way of costs to the Union. [274C]
CIVIL
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 627, 662,296, 27 1 & 452 of
1987.
(Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
WITH Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No. 12733 of 1988.
M.K.
Ramamurthy, M.A. Krishnamurthy and Mrs. Indira Sawhney for the Petitioners.
Ram Panjwani,
Raj Panjwani and Vijay Panjwani for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This batch of petitions
brought under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenge certain actions
taken by the officers of the Trade Fair Authority of India (TFAI) in exercise
of their disciplinary jurisdiction whereby the services of certain regular workmen
have been terminated and several casual or daily rated workers are rendered
jobless. Put briefly, the facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:
The
'Trade Fair Authority Employees' Union
(Union hereafter) was demanding housing
facilities, regularisation of atleast 50% of casual or daily rated employees
and upward revision of the salaries and allowances of the workers of TFAI.
These demands were discussed with the Chief General Manager of TFAI on August 29, 1986 and thereafter from time to time
but nothing concrete emerged. The case 262 of the Union is that the Chief General Manager had assured the
Union representatives that although it may not be possible to regularise the
service of casual labour to. the extent Of 50% some posts had already been
identified and the Standing Committee of TFAI which was seized of the matter
would take a decision at an early date. On the question of upward revision of
wages and allowances the Union's case is that the Chief General
Manager had given an assurance that pending final decision by the High Powered
Committee of TFAI, the scales prevailing in MMTC and STC could be adopted. The
grievance of the Union is that despite these assurances no action to implement
the same was taken whereupon the Union wrote to the Chief General Manager on
October 29, 1986 seeking implementation of the assurances at an early date and
not later than November 15, 1986.It was also communicated that the workers
belonging to the Union had decided to proceed on a token strike of one day on November
13, 1986. At a subsequent meeting held on November 3, 1986 the General Manager of TFAI is
stated to have assured the Union representatives that the Standing Committee
will be requested to take up the issue on priority basis so that the outcome
becomes known by the end of November, 1986. No such decision was taken by the
end of November, 1986; not even after the Union's
reminders of December
18, 1986 and January 9, 1987 whereupon the Union wrote a letter dated January 15, 1987 to the Chief General Manager to permit the Union to hold a General Body Meeting of the Union on January 19, 1987
during lunch hours. In anticipation of such permission being granted, which had
always been granted in the past, the Union
despatched notices to its members to attend the meeting. However, the Chief
General Manager informed the Union representatives that the permission was
refused. Within minutes of the receipt of this communication, the President of
the Union sent a reply stating that it was not possible to cancel the meeting
at such short notice. The General Body Meeting was held as schedule and a
decision was taken to strike work on January 21, 1987 to protest against the
management's failure to implement the assurances already given. On the same
day, January 19, 1987, the Union served the management with a notice informing
it about the decision to strike work on January 21, 1987. The management
reacted by placing the President, Vice President and Executive Members of the Union under suspension with immediate effect, i.e. with
effect from January 20,
1987. This angered the
striking workmen who had gathered outside the precincts of TFAI on January 21,
1987. They demanded the immediate withdrawal of the suspension orders failing
which they threatened that the strike would continue indefinitely. Intimation
to this effect was served on the Chief General Manager. The management however
suspended all the re263 maming office bearers, the executive members and
leading activists of the Union w.e.f. January 23, 1987. The strike was, however, called
off w.e.f. January 24,
1987, according to the
Union in the larger interest of .TFAI and
in national interest as the President of India was to inaugurate the AHARA '87
on January 25, 1987, while according to the management
it continued for almost two weeks. Writ Petition No. 296/1987 is by those 42
suspended workers.
Now,
during the strike some of the casual workers attended duty and their services
remained unaffected, some others who reported for duty after the strike and
were prepared to sign an undertaking in the prescribed form were given work
while the remaining casual workers who did not sign such an undertaking or were
late in reporting for work were denied employment. The Union's case is that out of a total work-force of about 500
casual workers, 160 did not participate in the strike and about 90 signed the
undertaking and they have since been employed while the remaining casual
workers are denied work. The Union sought
the intervention of the Union Commerce Minister and also invoked the
jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration, with a view to
finding an amicable settlement as the discharged workers were facing untold
miseries. However, contends the Union, the response of the management was not
positive and hence the Union was left with no alternative but to invoke this
court's jurisdiction for an early solution of the unemployment problem faced by
the workers. Writ Petition No. 271/87 is by 243 casual laborers who have thus
been rendered jobless.
Thereafter
the management by their orders of March 3, 1987 terminated the services of all
the 12 office bearers and Executive Committee Members who had been suspended
earlier in exercise of their power under the special procedure outlined in Rule
32 of the TFAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 ('The
Rules' hereafter).
This
rule inter alia empowers the Board of TFAI to impose any of the penalties
specified in Rule 25 (which includes penalties from Censure to Dismissal),
without holding an inquiry if the Board is satisfied for reasons to be stated
in writing that it is not practicable to hold such inquiry or in the interest
of the security of the Authority it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. This
provision overrides the need to hold a departmental inquiry under Rules 27 to
29 of the Rules. The Board in the impugned orders of dismissal has assigned
three reasons in support of its decision that is not practicable to hold an
inquiry, namely "(i) you by yourself and together with and through other associates
have threatened, intimidated and terrorised the Disci264 plinary Authority so
that he is afraid to direct the inquiry to be held; (ii) you the employee of
Trade Fair Authority of India particularly through and together with your
associates have terrorised and threatened and intimidated witnesses who are
likely to give evidence against you with fear of reprisal as to prevent them
from doing so; and (iii) as an atmosphere of violence and of general
indiscipline and insubordination has been created by a group of suspended
employees".
The
board has also stated in the impugned order that it is not expedient in the
interest of security of the TFAI to hold an enquiry in the manner provided by
the Rules. Annexure I to each order sets out the reasons which impelled the
Board to visit the 12 employees with the extreme penalty of dismissal. These 12
dismissed workers have challenged the orders of dismissal by their writ
petition No. 267 of 1987.
Writ
Petition No. 452 of 1987 is by one Raju, an employee of TFAI. He was a casual
laborer of TFAI since 1982 and was selected on July 4, 1986 as a Mini-Stiller
Driver in the scale of Rs.260-400. He joined the new post on the same day but
his appointment was cancelled without assigning any valid reason on July 25, 1986
and he was reverted as a daily wager. He too had joined the others for regularisation
of his service and had taken part in the strike. The management by office order
dated March 2, 1987 terminated his service w.e.f. December 1, 1986. No enquiry
was held nor was any opportunity to explain his conduct given to the delinquent
before his services came to be terminated. He has, therefore, challenged the
order dated July 25,
1986 and the
subsequent order dated March
2, 1987 as violative
of the principles of natural justice.
Writ
Petition No. 662 of 1987 concerns two daily rated Security Guards of TFAI whose
services came to be terminated by TFAI. The service of Bansi Dhar came to be
terminated on April 2, 1987 while that of his companion Vipti Singh came to be terminated
on April 8, 1987. Their allegation is that their services were dispensed with
because they refused to give false evidence against their co-workers who were
active members of the Union and who had filed W.P. No. 271/87 challenging the mala
fide action of TFAI terminating the services of 243 casual daily rated workers.
They contend that even though they had remained on duty during the strike,
their services were terminated because they refused to falsely implicate their
coworkers who had espoused their cause. They, therefore, contend that their
termination smacks of victimisation.
In all
the writ petitions Mr. N.N. Kesar, Manager (Admn) TFAI 265 has filed his
counter contending that as the. petitions require collection of facts this
Court should refuse to entertain these petitions and should relegate the
petitioners to the industrial tribunal or the concerned High Court.
According
to the deponent TFAI had to take action against the office bearers of the Union as they had created an atmosphere of violence and
had paralysed the smooth functioning of TFAI from November, 1986 onwards.
Instances of insubordination, threats, violence and lack of discipline have
been enumerated to show that officers of TFAI found it difficult to carry out
their functions and duties because of constant fear to themselves and their
kith and kin. Even though permission for holding a General Body meeting on January 19, 1987 within the precints of TFAI was
refused, the meeting was held at which inflammatory and provocative speeches
were made by the Union leaders. Extracts from the speeches of the various Union
leaders have been set out in the counter to acquaint the court to the type of
atmosphere that prevailed at a point of time when several important foreign
delegates and VIPs were attending the International Fair held by TFAI. The
secret reports which were received from the officers of TFAI at different
levels also suggested that trouble was brewing and immediate firm action was
necessary. Therefore, when the management learned that the employees had
decided to go on a token strike on January 21, 1987 it took action of suspending some
of the office bearers of the Union. After
the strike was prolonged upto January 23, 1987,
TFAI had to make alternative arrangements including security arrangements to
ensure that no untoward incident occurred during the visit of foreign VIPs and
more particularly during the visit of the President of India who was to
inaugurate the AHARA 1987 on January 25, 1987.
Even during the visit of the President certain employees posted themselves at
the main gates along with the President, Vice-President, General Secretary and
Secretary of the Union for picketing. Since certain other
inaugurations by VIPs were to take place between January 28, 1987 and February
2, 1987, TFAI was constrained to file a suit No. 263 of 1987 in the Delhi High
Court against the Union and seven office bearers to restrain them from
preventing and obstructing the entry of delegates, guest, dignitaries, etc.
into the Pragati Maidan where TFAI was having its fair. An ex-parte injunction
was granted prohibiting picketing, slogan shouting, etc. within 75 meters of
all gates leading to the Fair as shown in the map appended to the suit. It will
thus be seen that according to TFAI the workers' agitation was not a peaceful
one as is alleged by the petitioners. It was in the backdrop of these facts
that the Board decided to terminate the services of the 12 employees by virtue
of the power conferred on it by Rule 32 of the Rules. The reasons which
impelled 266 the Board to take this drastic action have been set out in the
annexure appended to each order of dismissal. TFAI, therefore, contends that
the action taken against the 12 erring workers is just, legal and proper and
this Court should refuse to interfere with the same. So far as the suspended
employees are concerned TFAI contends that it has power under Rule 22 of the
Rules to suspend erring delinquents pending inquiry. Such suspended employees
are entitled to suspension allowance paid at 50% of salary and allowances. It
is denied that TFAI has used the power of suspension as a coercive measure. It
is however stated that the correct number of suspended employees is 34 as named
in the Counter. Out of these 34 employees, the suspension order of 33 workmen
have since been revoked on acceptance of their explanation. Hence the
suspension order that survives is against Peon Umed Singh only, who is
receiving suspension allowance as per rules.
Insofar
as the casual labour is concerned, it is contended that TFAI had taken over the
maintenance of Pragti Maidan from C.P.W.D. w.e.f. January 1983. The Standing
Committee had, therefore, sanctioned a certain number of posts of the
Engineering staff for this purpose. A number of daily wage posts on muster roll
were created from time to time and were filled in by both skilled and unskilled
labour. A proposal for regularising such employees was pending before the
Standing Committee which had called for information. It was however tentatively
decided that 85 posts may be considered urgently for regularisation. This
proposal was cleared in January, 1987. The matter was pending with the Internal
Works Study Unit in the Ministry of Commerce and their report was awaited. It
was, therefore, contended that TFAI was always sympathetic in its approach and
yet the Union gave a call for a strike on January 19, 1987. The TFAI denies
that it did not provide work to casual labour when they reported on January 24,
1987 or thereafter or that they demanded any such undertaking as alleged.
As
regards the termination of Raju's service it is contended by TFAI that he was
given a provisional appointment on July 4, 1986 but the same had to be
terminated on July 25, 1986 firstly because it subsequently came to light that
he was convicted on June 30, 1987 under Sections 87 and 113 of the Motor
Vehicles Act and fined Rs.300 and secondly because of his outrageous behaviour
with his dealing assistant on July 22, 1986. These two reasons 'formed the
basis and the grounds and the administrative reasons' for withdrawal of the
provisional offer made in the letter of July 4, 1986. However, the letter of July 25,
1986 uses the words 'some administrative reasons' for cancel267 lation of the
order and impugned order of March 2, 1987 gives no reason whatsoever. It is,'
therefore, contended that since the offer was only provisional, the petitioner
had no right to the post and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.
So far
as the termination of service of the two Security Guards is concerned it is contended
that the allegation that their services were dispensed with because they
refused to co-operate with the management and give evidence against their
co-workers is denied. It is, therefore, contended that their petition is
without merit.
When
these petitions reached hearing before this Court on October 13, 1987, this
Court passed a common order directing the Chief Secretary of Delhi
Administration to spare the services of a Judge of the Labour Court to look
into the facts of these cases and finalise its report so as to reach the
Registry of this Court on or before December 18, 1987.
Since
the inquiry could not be finalised within the time allowed the time was
extended upto October 31, 1988. Shri Bhola Dutt, Presiding Officer, Labour
Court (VII) submitted his report on October 29, 1988. Before finalising its
report the Labour Court gave an opportunity to the contesting parties to file
their pleadings. Issues were framed thereafter, parties were permitted to lead
oral and documentary evidence, counsel were heard on the evidence tendered and
only thereafter the Labour Court recorded its findings. It came to the
conclusion that the 243 casual labourers had been doing conservancy work since
several years and all of them were denied work when they reported for duty on January 24, 1987 and thereafter because the work of Safai
Kamdars was handed over to M.C.D. w.e.f. January 22, 1987. It, however came to the conclusion
that denial of work to all the 243 casual workers was not justified. So far as
the only suspended employee--Peon Umed Singh--is concerned, the Labour Court
opined that mere participation in the strike called by the Union would not
furnish a sufficient cause to order large scale suspension of employees much
less termination of their employment. Since 33 of his colleagues similarly
suspended were taken back in service there was no justification to single out Umed
Singh for different treatment, more so when no disciplinary action is initiated
or contemplated against him. With regard to the termination of Raju driver's
service, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management had acted
in an illegal manner. In the first place it was not possible to accept the
reason that during the summer season there is paucity of work and hence the
provisional offer made on July 4, 1987 had to be cancelled within twenty days
on July 25, 1987. It would it difficult to believe that 268 within such a short
period there was a slump in work necessitating cancellation of the order. As to
the second reason regarding his conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act it
pointed out that the allegation that he had abused Amar Singh was not inquired
into and the delinquent was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct.
Certain other allegations by the management regarding his behaviour e.g.
absence without prior intimation, etc., all amount to misconduct for which a
departmental enquiry was necessary and in the absence of such an enquiry the
order was unsustainable. It therefore, held that the termination of Raju's
service was illegal.
The
case of the two security guards has been dealt with in detail by the Labour
Court. The Labour Court points out that the management decided to refuse work
to Bansi Dhar as his performance was not found to be satisfactory. He was
served with memos dated December 25, 1984, February 10, 1986 and February 20,
1987 with a warning to improve his performance failing which the management
would be constrained to refuse work to him. The note submitted by the Chief
Security Officer on March 3, 1987 that his termination may be considered if he
is found absent or indisciplined in future is indicative of the fact that the
management desired to give him an opportunity to improve. Nothing had happened
between March 3, 1987 and April 2, 1987 to warrant the termination of his
service. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the termination of his
employment by the order of April 2, 1987 was not sustainable. As regards his
companion Vipti Singh the management pointed out that apart from the fact that
his service was not satisfactory as is reflected by the memos of August 14,
1985 and October 20, 1986, he was found to have signed the attendance register
from March 23, 1987 to March 29, 1987 even though he was admittedly absent on
those days.
The Labour
Court examined this ground in detail and came to the conclusion that even
though the workmen had signed his presence on those dates, some doubt arose on
account of absence of cross marks in the register. The Labour Court, therefore,
came to the conclusion that the termination of the service was also not
justified.
Taking
note of the fact that the Union was demanding the upward revision of wages of
non-executive staff, housing facility and regularisation of casual labour and
the management's failure to accede to the demands notwithstanding the meetings
held on August 29, 1986, November 3, 1986 and January 19, 1987, the Labour
Court came to the conclusion that the strike was legal and justified, peaceful
and nonviolent and for a duration of only three days. The Labour Court also 269 came to the conclusion
that there was no justification for resorting to the exercise of extraordinary
powers under Rule 32 of the Rules. In the view of the Labour Court participation in strikes and slogan
shouting are part of trade union activity and hence it was not legal and proper
to visit the twelve Union leaders with the extreme punishment of dismissal from
service. It, therefore, held that their dismissal was illegal, unjustified and
wholly arbitrary.
All
the above findings of the Labour Court have been assailed by the TFAI in the
objections to the report. It is not necessary for us to indicate in detail the
nature of the objections but suffice it to say that according to the TFAI the
findings reached by the Labour Court are one sided, perverse and contrary to
the evidence on record. We have perused the objections as well as the reply
filed thereto by the petitioners.
From
the above resume it clearly emerges that the charter of demands put forth by
the Union was pending consideration. The main demands were three in number,
namely, (i) for upward revision of wages (ii) for regularisation of services of
casual labour and (iii) for providing housing facilities to the employees.
Efforts to settle these pending issues through negotiations were made at the
level of the Chief General Manager and it appears that this response was not
negative. It appears that the question of regularisation of casual and daily
rated workers was referred to the Standing Committee of the Board which had
taken the tentative decision to create 85 posts on the regular establishment
for regularisation. This proposal was forwarded to the I.W.S.
unit
of the concerned Ministry for approval. However since the final decision was
delayed the union leaders become restive. The Union representatives, therefore,
decided to call a General Body Meeting to decide on the future course of
action. On January 15,
1987 it wrote to the
management to permit it to hold a meeting on January 19, 1987. Notwithstanding the refusal of the permission the Union was compelled to hold the meeting as it had informed
its members and it was not possible to shift the venue at short notice.
The
angered leaders who addressed the workers condemned the management's action in
refusing to solve the outstanding problems of the workers in strong language.
We have perused the extracts from their speeches on which TFAI relies. The
language used is no doubt harsh and it would have been proper if such language
had been avoided.
Counsel
for TFAI also strongly contended that since the strike was illegal the workers
are not entitled to any relief. We see no merit 270 in this submission. The
right to form association or unions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c)
of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act provides for
registration of a trade union if all the requirements of the said enactment are
fulfilled. The right to form associations and unions and provide for their
registration was recognised obviously for conferring certain rights on trade
unions. The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and
grievances of labour. Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour. The
strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions
with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with
the managements. This bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is
not permitted to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is only a form of
demonstration. There are different modes of demonstrations, e.g., go-slow, sitin,
work-to-rule, absentism, etc., and strike is one such mode of demonstration by
workers for their rights. The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to
strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has
been recognised by almost all democratic countries.
Though
not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a
mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers. But the right to
strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have
been placed on it. These are to be found in sections 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`I.D. Act' for short). Section 10(3)
empowers the appropriate Government to prohibit the continuance of a strike if
it is in connection with a dispute referred to one of the for a created under
the said statute. Section 10A(4A) confers similar power on the appropriate
Government where the industrial dispute which is the cause of the strike is
referred to Arbitration and a notification in that behalf is issued under
Section 10(3A). These two provisions have no application to the present case
since it is no body's contention that the union's demands have been referred to
any forum under the statute.
The field
of operation of Sections 22 and 23 is different. While Section 10(3) and
Section 10A(4A) confer power to prohibit continuance of strike which is in
progress, Sections 22 and 23 seek to prohibit strike at the threshold.
Section
22 provides that no person employed in a public utility service shall proceed
on strike unless the requirements of clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1)
thereof are fulfilled. The expression 'public utility service' is defined in
Section 2(n) and indisputably TFAI does not fall within that expression.
Section 23 next imposes a general restriction on declaring strikes in breach of
contract during pendency of (i) conciliation proceedings. (ii) proceed271 ings
before Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal,
(iii) arbitration proceedings & (iv) during the period of operation of any
settlement or award. In the present case no proceedings were pending before any
of the aforementioned fora nor was it contended that any settlement or award
touching these workmen was in operation during the strike period and hence this
provision too can have no application.
Under
Section 24 a strike will be illegal only if it is commenced or declared in
contravention of Section 22 or 23 or is continued in contravention of an order
made under Section 10(3) or 10A(4A) of the I.D. Act. Except the above
provisions, no other provision was brought to our attention to support the
contention that the strike was illegal. We, therefore, reject this contention.
The
next question is whether the material on record reveals that the office bearers
of the union had given threats to officials of TFAI as alleged. The Labour Court has negatived the involvement of
office bearers of the union in giving threats either in person or on telephone.
We have perused the evidence on record in this behalf and we are inclined to
think that there were angry protests and efforts to obstruct the officers from
entering the precints of TFAI but there is no convincing evidence of use of
force or violence.
From
what we have discussed above we are of the view that although TFAI was
sympathetic to regularisation of service of the casual workers, since the
proposal had to pass through various levels it was not possible to take an
early decision in the matter. It was held up in the Ministry for which TFAI
could not be blamed. So also the proposal to revise the wages of non-executive
staff was under consideration since some time. However, the Union leaders lost
patience and took a decision to proceed on strike on the eve of the President's
visit to TFAI. This action of the Union
impelled TFAI to make alternative arrangements. It, therefore, dismissed the 12
union leaders invoking Rule 32 of the Rules.
On
going through the material placed before the Labour Court, we feel that the criticism levelled by TFAI that it
exceeded its brief and has betrayed a somewhat one-sided approach cannot be
said to be wholly misplaced. We have, however, looked to the bare facts found
by it. We are however disinclined to analyse the evidence before the Labour Court because we are of the view that
even though TFAI was not averse to the demands of labour it could not take a
final decision at an early date for want of approval from the concerned
Ministry. This angered the Union representatives more particularly because the
272 executive staff was granted upward revision of salary, allowances, etc.,
and hence they decided to call a meeting of the general body to decide on the
future course of action. In their frustration they decided to put pressure by
proceeding on strike. During the strike period certain events happened which we
wish were avoided. But fortunately nothing destructive, meaning thereby
damaging to the property of TFAI, took place. A few brushes and exchange of
strong words appear to have taken place which are described as threats by the
management. The vast mass of labour was only responding to the call of the Union. Even the union representatives were acting out of
frustration and not out of animoisity for the officers. The facts of this case,
therefore, demand that we appreciate the conduct of both sides keeping in mind
the prevailing overall situation. While the workers were frustrated for want of
an early solution, the management was worried because of the impending visit of
the President on January
25, 1987. Instead of
trying to lay the blame at the door of either party, which would only leave a
bitter taste for long, we think we should resolve the crisis in the larger
interest of the institution.
Taking
an overall view of the facts and circumstances which emerge from the oral as
well as documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that while
some of the Union leaders acted in haste, they do not appear to have been
actuated by any oblique motive. The management also took action against the workmen
not because it was unsympathetic towards their demands but because of the
anxiety caused to them on account of untimely action taken by the Union only a
few days before the President's scheduled visit to the fare. The management
also felt hurt as its reputation was at stake since several dignitaries from
abroad were participating in the fare. Its action must, therefore, be
appreciated in this background.
The
interest of the institution must be paramount to all concerned including the
workmen. At the same time this Court cannot be oblivious to the economic
hardship faced by labour. We have already pointed out earlier how both parties
reacted to the tense atmosphere that built up over a period of time. The facts
found by the labour court clearly show that while the labour was frustrated as
its demands were outstanding since long and they were finding it difficult to
combat the inflation without an upward revision in wages, etc., the management
was worried about TFAI's reputation likely to be lowered in the eyes of
visiting dignitaries because of certain events that were happening due to the
workers' agitation. In these circumstances it would be unwise and futile to
embark upon a fault finding mission.
273
Keeping the interest of the institution in mind and bearing in mind the
economic hardships that the labour would suffer if the impugned orders are not
set aside, we think that it would be desirable to restore the peace by
directing the re-instatement of the workers. However, so far as the case of the
security guard Vipti Singh is concerned, we are constrained to say that the
material on record does disclose that he had signed the attendance register
showing his presence from March 23, 1987
to March 29, 1987 even though he was in fact absent
on those days. His explanation in this behalf is far from convincing. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that he deserves punishment, but not the extreme
punishment of dismissal from service. We think that the ends of justice would
be met if we direct his reinstatement without back wages.
So far
as the case of driver Raju is concerned, it must be pointed out that the
management cancelled the offer of July 4, 1986 by the letter of July 25, 1986 because of his conviction under
Sections 87 and 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act and his so-called outrageous behaviour
with the dealing assistant on July 22, 1986.
These being clearly acts of misconduct, the action of the management must be
held to be penal in nature and cannot be sustained as it was taken without
hearing the delinquent. To hold an enquiry against him at this late stage is
not desirable.
In the
result all the writ petitions are allowed and the rule is made absolute in each
case to the extent indicated hereinafter. The management will prepare a list of
casual daily rated workers who were its employees prior to the strike on January 21, 1987 in accordance with their seniority,
if such a list does not exist. TFAI will provide them work on the same basis on
which they were given work prior to the strike. After the seniority list is
prepared TFAI will absorb 85 of the senior most casual workers in regular
employment pending finalisation of the regularisation scheme. TFAI will
complete the regularisation process within a period of 3 months from today.
TFAI will determine the .umber of casual employees who would have been employed
had they not proceeded on strike. The wages payable to such casual employees
had they been employed for the period of 6 months immediately preceding the
date of this order will be worked out on the basis of actual labour employed
and the amount so worked out will be distributed amongst the casual employees
who report for work in the next three months after TFAI resumes work to casual labour.
Peon Umed Singh, Security Guard Bansi Dhar and Driver Raiu will also be
reinstated in service forthwith. They too will be paid 274 back wages (less
suspension allowance, if any) for a period of 6 months immediately preceding
this order. So far as Driver Raju is concerned he will be absorbed in regular
service as per the offer made in the letter of July 4, 1987 disregarding the subsequent communication of July 25, 1987.
The
security guard Vipti Singh will also be reinstated in service but without back
wages. In the case of the 12 dismissed workers we are, on the facts placed
before us, of the view the circumstances did not exist for the exercise of
extraordinary powers under Rule 32 of the Rules. The orders terminating the
services of the 12 union representatives are therefore set aside and they are
ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with back wages coveting a period
of 6 months immediately preceding the date of this order. They should be
reinstated forthwith. In view of the above directions no further order is
required on the C.M.PTFAI will pay Rs.5,000 in all by way of costs to the Union.
Y. Lal
Petition allowed.
Back