T.Sathish Kumar, Artisan Gr Ii v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P(MD)Nos.23032 to 23040 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos. 20922 to 20930 of 2018 T.Sathish Kumar : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23032/2018 T.Sankar Ganesh : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23033/2018 K.Veerapandian : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23034/2018 E.Saravanan : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23035/2018 S.Jothi : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23036/2018 R.Manjunath : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23037/2018 V.Baskaran : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23038/2018 K.Thilak : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23039/2018 K.Vijayaraj : Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23040/2018 Vs.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Deputy Manager, Boiler Production, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23032/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, Boiler Production, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23033/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23034/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, BPN/Unit-II, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23035/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, BPN/Unit-II, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23036/2018
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23037/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, Tubular Products/BPN, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23038/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, BPN/Unit-II, BHEL, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23039/2018 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited rep. by its Senior Production Engineer, : Respondent in WP(MD)No.23040/2018 COMMON PRAYER in W.P(MD)Nos.23032 to 23040 of 2018 : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide proceedings in Nos.BP:P:2:2213427, BP:P:2:2213117, BP:P:2:6065384, BP:P:2:6036260, BP:P:2:6133460, BP:P:2:6065023, BP:P:2:6022898, BP:P:2:6166164, BP:P:2:6065074, dated 05.10.2018 respectively passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj (in all cases) COMMON ORDER The writ petitioners herein who are office bearers and members of BHEL Welders' Association, are aggrieved by the impugned orders placing them under suspension pending enquiry. 2.The reasons stated in the impugned orders which is captioned as 'Suspension cum Charge Sheet' reveals that the petitioners herein after punching their attendance for duty on 15.09.2018 have left the work after 14.30 hours and gathered near Building No.3253 and organised meeting. In the said meeting, the workers were instructed to strike work, which is violation of the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.337 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichy. Pursuant to the said meeting,
more than 10 employees have abstained from work without leave or prior permission. Considering their unauthorised absence between 01.10.2018 and 05.10.2018, contemplating departmental enquiry, the petitioners herein have been placed under suspension. 3.In a connected batch of writ petitions, challenging the transfer order of few members, who have participated in the strike as well as acted detrimental to the interest of the organisation, this Court has found that the members of the BHEL Welders' Association in which the writ petitioners herein are members, have contravened the established principle under Labour Jurisprudence. Having initiated conciliation proceedings, without waiting for the outcome, they had resorted to sit in strike, abstaining from work and conducting meeting inciting strike.
In the impugned order, it is specifically stated that gathering inside the work spot and conducting meeting is contrary to the decree passed by the Civil Court. Further abstaining from attending work without sanction of leave or prior permission amounts to strike without notice, which is a serious misconduct warrants stringent disciplinary action. 4.The petitioners herein have been placed under suspension ensuring subsistence allowance and other benefits, the workman entitled during the period of suspension. The petitioners herein have been given an opportunity to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. Without submitting their explanation, they have rushed to this Court seeking indulgence of this Court on the ground that the impugned order is not in consonance with Rule 62 of the Standing Orders.
The said Rule contemplates opportunity to show cause before penalty is imposed and if major punishment is likely to be imposed, charge should be framed stating the allegation and only after receiving written explanation, punishment can be imposed.
5.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that without framing charge, the petitioners cannot be placed under suspension. It is also submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioners have incited strike and the conduct of the sitting chairman of the association will not amount to misconduct. The act of the petitioners also justified on the ground that the conciliation proceedings pursuant to the strike notice ended in failure on 24.08.2018 and therefore, the act of the management is illegal and unfair.
6.While the petitioners herein want to rely upon the rule and procedures and claim protection of the Court against the alleged suspension orders have totally failed to bear in mind about the decree passed in O.S.No.337 of 1987. They have totally failed to bear in mind that when the conciliation process is under way, no act which could precipitate and break the conciliation proceedings should be resorted. The strike notice issued by the association of the writ petitioners has led to conciliation and though it is stated in the affidavits that the conciliation was failed, the matter has
been referred for arbitration. When the redressal process as contemplated in the Statute is under way, resorting to sit in strike or inciting the workers to go for strike or abstaining from duty without notice, prima facie constitutes misconduct, which warrants adequate action.
7.In this case, the respondent has passed the orders of suspension pending enquiry, after considering the conduct of the petitioners. This Court finds no violation of law or illegality in the said orders. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II) To
1. The Deputy Manager, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Boiler Production, BHEL,
2. The Senior Production Engineer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Boiler Production, BHEL,
3. The Senior Production Engineer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
4. The Senior Production Engineer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Tubular Products/BPN, BHEL, + 1 CC TO Mr.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96108 SMN TE/SKN/SAR-2 : 10/12/2018 : 4P/6C COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.23032 to 23040 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.of 20922 to 20930 of 2018 20.11.2018