Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Labour Court's Decision To Reinstate Terminated Workman For Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court to reinstate a workman, who was terminated by a private company for not joining the service on the notified date, without holding the enquiry and following the principle of natural justice.

The court was hearing the writ petition filed by the company against the Labour’s Court decision of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice M. Ganga Rao said that, “contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry need to be conducted before his termination as he himself absconded from duties, application under Section 2-A2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable, holds no water as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.”

The bench also said that the notification publishing the Award issued under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not challenged in the petition and mere challenge of Award in the writ petition is not maintainable.

Brief Facts

The workman was serving as Medical Representative in Novartis India Limited. In 2001 he was transferred from Kakinada to Davanagere. However the workman requested the management to retain him at Kakinada to look after his aged parents. The request was declined and he was directed to proceed to Davanagere and report for duty with effect from 12.11.2001. Then, the workmen applied for sick leave and he was referred to the Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital for a second opinion. The Civil Surgeon examined the workman and told the company that he required 10 days for complete healing.

In November 2001, the management granted 10 days sick leave from 21.11.2001 to 30.11.2001 to the workman. He was directed to report for duty at Devaragere on 01.12.2001.

Thereafter, the workman did not report for duty at Devanagere but sent a telegram asking for privilege leave for an unspecified period which was rejected by the petitioner and the workman was directed to report for duty to the Sales Manager on 19.4.2002. But, he did not do so.

In April 2002, the petitioner by its final letter directed the workman to report for duty at Devanagere by 10.00 A.M on 04.05.2002 and warned him that if he failed to report for duty, action will be taken. The workman did not report for duty. The petitioner by order dated 08.05.2002 terminated the services of the respondent workman.

Being aggrieved by the termination order, the workman moved application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court mainly on the ground that the termination order came to be passed without conducting any enquiry, no charges are framed and no opportunity was given to him to put forth his case. It was argued that same is against the principles of natural justice.

The Labour Court on 05.01.2009 held that no enquiry was conducted before passing the termination order and even before the Tribunal, no evidence was placed in support of its termination by the petitioner. It was held respondent workman’s service was put to an end without following the procedure.

The Labour Court followed the decision in the case of Apex Court’s State of Punjab v. Desh Dandha, wherein it is held that the effect of non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would be a direction for reinstatement only to restore the Workman to the same status which they held when their services were terminated.

It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Novartis India v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was held that an employee refusing to join a new territory on transfer, it is a misconduct but the employer shall initiate disciplinary proceedings and that a mere order of discharge is not a substitute for an order of punishment.

"The Labour Court having followed the Novartis case, held that there shall be a finding by the authority that there is misconduct on the part of the employee and the certified standing order, if any, empower the management to impose a major punishment for such misconduct," the high court noted.

Justice Rao also observed that when punishment is put to judicial review, it should satisfy as to its proportionality to the misconduct.

"All these tests could be applied only when there is employee and a finding. If the management resolves to terminate the services as a measure of punishment without following the principles of natural justice, thereby avoid judicial scrutiny of the administrative action, the only consequence is to order reinstatement of the employees, which is a justifiable order that can be passed in the opinion of the Labour Court," the court said.

Hence, the court rejected the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry need to be conducted before his termination as he himself absconded from duties, application under Section 2-A2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

"The Labour Court after elaborately considering the contentions of the parties passed well reasoned and articulated Award. It does not suffer from any legal infirmities," it said.

In light of the above, the court ruled that decision of the Labour Court to reinstate the workman does not suffer from any error of fact and law which warrants interference of the High Court by exercising the power of writ of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Case Title- NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED vs. THE CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDNG. OFFR. INDUS.TRIB. CUM LABOUR, VSKPTNMAN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 17