Introduction:

A single Judge Bench of Bombay High Court, ruled in favor of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld dismissal of 35 workers for not complying with legal requirements, staging an illegal strike and taking out a procession which was violent in nature. The High Court in the present case ruled that in circumstances where actions of the employees endanger the safety of the workplace, the employers can immediately terminate the employees and can retrospectively justify the termination as part of court proceedings.

Facts Of the Case:

Some of the employees of Advani Oerlikon started a wave of strikes in the year 1997 as a result of failed wage negotiations. The strike resulted in violent behavior shown by the employees which included physical intimidation and forcefully stopping other employees from performing their duties. In retaliation to this Advani Oerlikon Ltd., terminated the concerned employees without any enquiry and also declared that the illegal strike and participation therein is considered as misconduct. The matter reached to labor Court and the terminated employees alleged that their fundamental rights were denied because no disciplinary enquiry was conducted but the labor court dismissed these contentions, and the industrial court dismissed the dismissals the matter subsequently reached High Court.  

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The Petitioners who were the terminated employees in the present case alleged that principles of natural justice as the petitioners were terminated without holding a proper inquiry into their conduct. It was argued that participation in a strike should not result in termination without enquiry.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Respondent’s submitted that the terminated employees committed the gravest form of misconduct including but not limited to physical intimidation which resulted in breach of duty and trust. The Respondent’s contended that acts carried out by the terminated employees gravely endangered the safety at workplace. The Respondent’s  would further submit that it is settled position of law that an employer can pass innocuous order of termination without holding enquiry and can subsequently justify termination of workmen by leading evidence before the Labour and the Industrial Court. That mere failure on the part of the employer to conduct enquiry does not take away its right to justify the action before the Labour and Industrial Courts.

Court’s Observation:

Justice Marne while ruling in the favor of the Respondent’s observed that:

“Respondent Management has justified the action of termination of Petitioners. The Management was prevented from holding a fair enquiry in the present case on account of atmosphere of terror created by the Petitioners. Petitioners had erected a tent in front of the office of Additional Commissioner of Labour and camped there. The petitioner showed the audacity of camping outside the Government Office from 7 November 1997 till 30 January 1998 when the tent was ultimately removed. Petitioners have assaulted the Management officials. They had created an atmosphere of terror. They prevented other officials, staff and workers from joining duties. In such circumstances, it was not possible to conduct a fair enquiry and the Management rightly took the risk of terminating the services of Petitioners and latter justifying the action by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The Management has examined several witnesses before the Labour Court who have given account of various incidents that occurred suggesting rash, offensive and callous behavior on the part of Petitioners.”

The High Court while observing that the acts of employees constituted misconduct notes the following:

“Even if the evidence of assault on Management witnesses is to be momentarily ignored, the misconduct of participation in illegal strike, preventing other willing persons from joining duties and threatening them, together with creation of atmosphere of terror, by itself, constitutes grave misconduct to justify termination of services. In Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. Versus. Ram Probesh Singh, the Apex Court has held that physically obstructing other employees from joining duties by striking employees is a serious misconduct, worthy of dismissal.”

Court’s Decision:

The Hon’ble Court Considering all the evidence of how the Petitioners behaved during the illegal strike ruled in the favor of the Respondents as it was observed that the conduct of Petitioner’s endangered the safety of the workplace. The Court rejected the contention that principles of natural justice were violated by the Respondents as the court observed that the Respondents were unable to conduct a fair and proper enquiry at the moment because of the behavior of Petitioners, The High Court also observed that it is a well settled principle of labor law that termination can be later justified by giving evidence of misconduct, mere absence of a disciplinary enquiry will not set aside the termination.  

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur