Violent Strike Justifies Immediate Termination Without Enquiry: Bombay HC
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld Advani Oerlikon Ltd.'s decision to terminate workers who participated in illegal strikes and violent protests without conducting a prior enquiry. The Court ruled that where employee misconduct clearly jeopardizes workplace safety, as evidenced by acts of obstruction, intimidation, and assault, employers can...
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld Advani Oerlikon Ltd.'s decision to terminate workers who participated in illegal strikes and violent protests without conducting a prior enquiry. The Court ruled that where employee misconduct clearly jeopardizes workplace safety, as evidenced by acts of obstruction, intimidation, and assault, employers can justify termination retrospectively in court proceedings. The Court affirmed that pre-termination enquiry is not mandatory when workplace circumstances make it impractical or impossible.
Background
In 1997, workers from Advani Oerlikon Ltd. went on a series of strikes following unresolved negotiations over a wage settlement. This culminated in a violent demonstration at the company's gates. When the situation escalated to physical intimidation and the obstruction of other employees, Advani Oerlikon terminated approximately 35 workers without conducting an enquiry. The termination notices cited the illegal strike and acts of misconduct as reasons. The workers subsequently filed complaints with the Labour Court, which dismissed their pleas. They appealed to the Industrial Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision, leading to this writ petition. The petitioners argued that the company's failure to conduct a disciplinary enquiry before termination violated principles of natural justice and deprived them of the opportunity to defend themselves. They claimed that the strike was peaceful and that no unlawful acts had been committed.
Arguments
Petitioners' counsel argued that the Labour Court's dismissal of the complaint was flawed, asserting that the company's decision to terminate without enquiry denied the workers due process. He highlighted that mere participation in strike activities should not justify termination without a hearing. He further argued that allowing Advani Oerlikon to retrospectively introduce evidence of alleged violence without an initial enquiry was a violation of labor law principles.
Advani Oerlikon countered by arguing that the workers' actions constituted serious misconduct under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act). He cited multiple instances of obstruction, intimidation, and assault, stating that these actions created an unsafe environment that precluded the possibility of a fair enquiry. Counsel argued that the company was entitled to justify the termination later in court as per precedents established in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory, wherein it is permissible to terminate for grave misconduct without an enquiry in situations posing threats to workplace safety.
Court's Reasoning
The court upheld the terminations, reasoning that the employer had acted within its rights under the MRTU & PULP Act. The court reviewed the evidence presented, and citing Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory, the court confirmed that employers are permitted to substantiate terminations before the Labor Court when a pre-termination enquiry is impractical or impossible.
The court noted that where employee conduct clearly jeopardizes workplace order, the requirement for a prior enquiry is mitigated. The judge noted that “the threat posed by the petitioners' conduct rendered an enquiry futile; hence, the retrospective justification by the company was lawful and did not contravene labor principles.” The court further found no merit in the argument that peaceful agitation was involved, as records evidenced acts of violence against management officials and other workers. Thus, the court dismissed the petition, maintaining the validity of the terminations as a necessary action to preserve workplace security and uphold lawful employment practices.
Decided on: 22-10-2024
Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:41999
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Kamerkar
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Kiran S. Bapat