Dismissed

Tyford Estate v. P.Natarajan

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016WA/1501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge decision dismissed an appeal against an industrial dispute award where the Industrial Tribunal reinstated workers but denied back wages. The High Court affirmed that courts cannot generally substitute industrial tribunal punishment, but declined to interfere with a Single Judge's interim grant of ex-gratia relief intended to mitigate hardship during the prolonged reinstatement de

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Single Judge's order directing payment of Rs. 25,000 each to the workers was left unaltered.

Tyford Estate Vs P.Natarajan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 1501 of 2016 () IN WP(C).36404/2005

¶6

-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36404/2005 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-05-2016

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶8

TYFORD ESTATE FAIR FIELD P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC

¶10

RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)No. & RESPONDENT NO.3/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP:

¶11

P.NATARAJAN S/O.PONNAYA NADAR, TYFORD ESTATE, FAIR FIELD P.O., ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685 504. 2. R.PONRAJ S/O.RAJAMUTH, TYFORD ESTATE, FAIR FIELD P.O., ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN: 685 504. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IDUKKI 685 531. R1 & 2 BY SRI.MAJNU KOMATH R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶12

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶14

--------------------------------------------------

¶15

W.A.No.1501 OF 2016

¶16

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2016

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , J .

¶19

Challenge is against the judgment dated 25.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.36404/2005, whereby the Award passed by the 3^rd respondent-Industrial Tribunal denying back wages while ordering reinstatement in service, has been interfered and modified, holding that a sum of 25,000/- each had₹ to be paid to the workers concerned.

¶20

The sequence of events, as projected in the appeal shows that, respondents 1 and 2 herein were workers in the appellant's estate. On coming across some misconducts, particularly in removing some wooden logs from the estate and when it was questioned, the authorities of the estate were threatened and abused in intemperate language, which led to the disciplinary proceedings against the workers concerned. On completing the domestic enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, finding the workers guilty of the misconduct alleged. After

¶21

W.A.No.1501/2016 -2-

¶22

considering the materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which was sought to be challenged by raising an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the 3^rd respondent-Tribunal.

¶23

The parties entered appearance and on culmination of the trial, the Tribunal held that the misconduct was proved. But taking note of the admission made from the part of the Management as to permitting the workers to collect fire wood from the estate and such other mitigating circumstances, it was held that 'denial of back wages' would be the appropriate punishment. Accordingly, the workers were ordered to be reinstated in service, denying back wages.

¶24

It is seen from the proceedings that the appellantManagement did not want to challenge the verdict and accordingly, the workers were given employment reinstating them in service, which fact is virtually conceded from the part of the workers. But they were still aggrieved, in so far as back wages were denied to them and hence they sought to challenge Ext.P1 Award by filing a Writ Petition before this Court in the year 2005. After hearing both

¶25

W.A.No.1501/2016 -3-

¶26

the sides, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, it took nearly 'six' years for the Tribunal to have the matter finalised and all throughout, the workers were virtually suffering, having no alternate employment of their own. It was observed that the Management did not have any case that, the workers were having other means of livelihood. In the said circumstance, the learned Single Judge moulded the relief by considering the time spent for arriving at the finality and accordingly, ordered payment of a sum of 25,000/- to each of the workers/writ petitioners, which in turn₹ is under challenge in this appeal.

¶27

Heard Mr.Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Majnu Komath, the learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 at length. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent as well.

¶28

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant

¶29

points out that, there is no dispute as to the instance of misconduct, which was enquired into and ultimately it was held that the misconduct was proved. But considering the gravity of

¶30

W.A.No.1501/2016 -4-

¶31

the proven misconduct, the power vested with the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11A of the ID Act was invoked and the punishment was modified as denial of back wages, while ordering reinstatement. This discretion having been exercised by the Industrial Tribunal, it was never open for the learned Single Judge to have entertained the Writ Petition and segregated the period limiting the extent of denial of back wages. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not possible under such circumstance, as it is not for this Court to substitute the punishment, more so when the misconduct has already been proved.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that, irreparable hardships have been caused to the workers who were being paid only a sum of 1,518/- per month,₹ which came to be denied in toto for nearly two decades and that they were virtually running through the streets, for eking out their livelihood. The learned counsel adds that there was no fault on the part of the workers with regard to the delay involved in finalisation of the proceedings. It took nearly 'six' years for the Tribunal to

¶33

W.A.No.1501/2016 -5-

¶34

conclude the proceedings by passing Ext.P1 Award. Similarly, the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2005 and the same was finally disposed of only in May, 2016. The gravity of the proven misconduct was also taken note of by the learned Single Judge and it was accordingly, that the relief was moulded. It is pointed out that, what has been awarded by the learned Single Judge to each of the two workers is only a meagre sum of 25,000/-, which may₹ amount to two months' salary as on date.

¶35

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that substitution of the punishment is not the job of this Court, unless warranting circumstance is involved, so as to ensure that the power and procedure under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been exercised properly. The fact remains that the misconduct stands proved and in exercise of the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal has held that 'denial of back wages' is a proper punishment. In so far as there is no other mitigating circumstance with regard to the commission of the misconduct and in so far as the proceedings were never stated as protracted by the Management, resulting in a

¶36

W.A.No.1501/2016

¶37

-6-

¶38

culpable delay of 'six' years before the 3^rd respondent-Tribunal, interference cannot be made as a matter of course. To this extent, we find that the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is having considerable force.

¶39

But coming to the scope of interference in this appeal, as mentioned already, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is only to facilitate payment of a sum of 25,000/- each to₹ both the workers. It remains a fact that, after the dismissal from the service in the year 1999, they were not having any means to earn their living, till they were reinstated pursuant to Ext.P1 Award. The Management also did not choose to challenge the same by filing a Writ Petition. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is warranted on facts with regard to the direction given by the learned Single Judge, granting a sum of 25,000/- to the writ₹ petitioners/workers. Accordingly, while answering the question of law in favour of the Management/appellant as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, interference is declined on facts, with regard to the direction for effecting the payment ordered by the learned

W.A.No.1501/2016

-7-

Single Judge.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ,

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶48

dsn

¶49

True copy

¶50

P.S. to Judge

Tyford Estate v. P.Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tyford Estate v. P.Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gipta Enterprises,Eastern Street,Ap Vs Commercial Tax Officer,Munnar,Idukki

Gupta Enterprises,Eastern Street Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Munnar

Sobhana v Vs the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway

Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Union of India & Others Vs V.S. Jaitha & Others

Malabar Cement Ltd., Vs the Kerala State Security Staff Asso.