1. Heard.

2. The petitioner was a workman in the respondent company. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 25.10.2010, he raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer at Krishnagiri through his representation dated 16.03.2011. As the conciliation efforts failed, the Labour Officer issued a failure report on 08.08.2011. Based on the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement dated 08.08.2012. The dispute was taken on file by the Labour Court, Salem, as I.D. No. 105 of 2012, and notice was issued to the respondent management. In response, the respondent management filed a counter statement on 22.02.2013.

3. As the workman challenged the fairness of the enquiry, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on this aspect. In support of their case, the management submitted 22 documents, which were marked as Ex. M1 to Ex. M22. Upon consideration, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and, by its order dated 07.06.2016, set aside the enquiry. However, since the management, in its counter statement, had made an alternative plea— seeking an opportunity to prove the charges before the Labour Court in the event that the enquiry was found to be invalid—the matter proceeded accordingly.

4. Availing the opportunity granted, the management examined K. Srinivasan as MW1 and submitted 16 documents, which were marked as Ex. M1 to Ex. M16. The Labour Court, upon evaluation, upheld the dismissal order, finding that the charges against the petitioner workman were duly proved. It further declined to interfere with the penalty imposed.

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 22.02.2018 in I.D. No. 105 of 2012, the present writ petition was filed after a delay of three years. However, the affidavit in support of the writ petition did not provide any justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. The writ petition was admitted on 03.03.2021, and upon issuance of notice, the respondent’s counsel entered an appearance. The respondent’s counsel also filed a counter affidavit dated 16.09.2023, along with a typed set of documents containing Exhibits M7 to M14 that were submitted before the Labour Court. On behalf of the workman, in addition to the documents filed along with the writ petition, an additional typed set was submitted, including Ex. M1, Ex. M3 to Ex. M5, and Ex. M15. They also filed the oral evidence recorded during the domestic enquiry.

6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 517, wherein it was held that once an enquiry conducted by the employer is vitiated, no part of such an enquiry can be relied upon by the Labour Court. Consequently, this Court cannot take into consideration the oral evidence recorded during the domestic enquiry. Furthermore, since the management was granted liberty to lead fresh evidence, the workman also had the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. However, he did not avail himself of this opportunity, and as a result, no material was placed on record on his behalf before the Labour Court. The same principle applies to the nature of the evidence submitted by the management before the Labour Court.

7. In the impugned award, while the Labour Court acknowledged the legal principle that a vitiated enquiry cannot be relied upon, it nevertheless considered the admissions made by the workman in his explanation dated 13.10.2009 (Ex. M6) in response to the charge sheet dated 22.09.2009 (Ex. M4). Based on the explanation, the Labour Court concluded that the workman had agreed to work the third shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and had consented to continue working after completing the second shift. Referring to the cross-examination of MW1, the Labour Court observed that the third shift commenced only after midnight, around 12:00 a.m., following the supply of raw materials. During this period—between 12:30 a.m., 12:45 a.m., and 1:15 a.m.—some workers, including the petitioner, were found sleeping. The petitioner was identified by his initials (PS) by the Works Manager, and the Supervisor, Dharman, had made similar remarks in his complaint, marked as Ex. M3. According to the complaint, the workmen were engaged in threshing and weaving work but were lying down until 1:15 a.m. The Labour Court noted that there was a clear admission that they were resting until 1:30 a.m. after informing the Supervisor.

8. The Labour Court further held that sleeping while on duty constitutes clear misconduct and noted that the workman had a prior history of similar behavior. It rejected the contention that the case amounted to victimization. The Court also observed that, apart from the petitioner, none of the four other dismissed workers had raised any dispute regarding their termination. It also emphasized that since the respondent company is engaged in the production of explosives, maintaining strict vigilance at all times is crucial. The Labour Court found that the workman’s explanation, which was submitted only after 20 days, appeared to be an afterthought, possibly influenced by his union leader. Consequently, having found the charge of sleeping while on duty to be duly proved, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief to the workman and dismissed the industrial dispute.

9. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, reference was made to the workman’s previous conduct, which is as follows:

“19. ….. However, the conduct of the Petitioner was repetitive in nature and on earlier 3 occasions he was visited with minor punishment and on one occasion he was terminated. On the basis of assurance given by the Petitioner, he was reinstated. However, when the Petitioner was found to be regularly breaching the rules of the company, the Petitioner deserves no leniency in the matter of punishment.”

10. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 489, in support of his argument. In that case, the Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in Colourchem Limited, reported in 1998 (3) SCC 192, where certain workers found sleeping on duty were let off on the ground that it constituted only minor misconduct. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the Colourchem Limited case made the following observations:

“In that case the Respondents therein were punished although ten other mazdoors who were also found to be sleeping were let off. This Court noticed that the Respondents therein were although assigned more responsible duties as compared to the mazdoors but in the background of the surrounding circumstances and especially in the light of their past service record there was no escape from the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal imposed on them for such misconduct was grossly and shockingly disproportionate.

Cholour-Chem Ltd. (supra) was, thus, rendered in the fact situation obtaining therein. It is not an authority for the proposition that in a case where an employee is found to be sleeping during working hours, imposition of punishment of dismissal, despite his past bad records must be held to be disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

In the instant case although victimization has been taken to be a ground of complaint, no factual foundation therefor was laid and it was confined to quoting only the legal provisions. No plea of legal victimization was also taken in the complaint petition.”

11. The second decision cited by the learned counsel, Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr., reported in 2006 (13) SCC 619, addressed the scope of courts in granting relief, emphasizing that such relief must be logical and tenable. A reference was made to the following passage in paragraph 9:

“. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. ”

12. The third decision, K. Raju v. The Presiding Officer, W.P. (MD) No. 362 of 2017, dated 02.03.2017, primarily dealt with the burden of proof regarding an employee's claim of unemployment during litigation, placing the onus on the employee. However, this issue is not relevant to the present case.

13. Though the counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments based on the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to accept any of them. The impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity. The Labour Court exercised its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, both in evaluating the charges based on the evidence and in determining that there was no justification for interfering on the ground of disproportionate penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P. No. 4801 of 2021 stands dismissed. No costs.