1989 (9) TMI 399 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules in favor of employees in termination and strike legality case

B.R. SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees in a case involving the termination of services of regular workmen, denial of employment to casual ... - Issues Involved:1. Termination of services of regular workmen.2. Denial of employment to casual or daily rated workers.3. Legality of the strike and subsequent actions by the management.4. Termination of services of specific individuals (Raju, Bansi Dhar, and Vipti Singh).5. Exercise of extraordinary powers under Rule 32 by TFAI.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Services of Regular Workmen:The Trade Fair Authority Employees' Union (Union) demanded housing facilities, regularization of at least 50% of casual or daily rated employees, and upward revision of salaries and allowances. Despite assurances from the Chief General Manager of TFAI, no concrete action was taken, leading to a strike on January 21, 1987. The management reacted by suspending the Union's office bearers and eventually terminated their services using Rule 32 of the TFAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. The Supreme Court found that the management's action of dismissing the 12 union leaders was not justified as the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary powers under Rule 32. The Court ordered their reinstatement with back wages for six months preceding the order.2. Denial of Employment to Casual or Daily Rated Workers:During the strike, some casual workers attended duty and were unaffected, while others who did not sign an undertaking or reported late were denied employment. The Union contended that 243 casual laborers were rendered jobless. The Labour Court found that the denial of work to all 243 casual workers was not justified. The Supreme Court directed TFAI to prepare a seniority list of casual workers and absorb 85 of the senior-most casual workers into regular employment within three months. Casual employees who would have been employed had they not proceeded on strike were to be paid wages for six months preceding the order.3. Legality of the Strike and Subsequent Actions by the Management:The Union's demands were pending, and the strike was called due to the management's failure to address these demands. The Labour Court concluded that the strike was legal, justified, peaceful, and non-violent. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the strike was illegal, emphasizing the right to form associations and unions under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the strike was a form of demonstration and an important weapon for workers to voice their grievances.4. Termination of Services of Specific Individuals:- Raju: His provisional appointment was canceled due to his conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act and alleged outrageous behavior. The Labour Court found the termination illegal as no inquiry was held. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement and regularization as per the initial offer.- Bansi Dhar: Terminated for unsatisfactory performance despite being given opportunities to improve. The Labour Court found the termination unjustified. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement with back wages for six months preceding the order.- Vipti Singh: Terminated for signing the attendance register while absent. The Labour Court found the termination unjustified. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement without back wages, acknowledging the misconduct but deeming dismissal too harsh.5. Exercise of Extraordinary Powers under Rule 32 by TFAI:The management invoked Rule 32 to terminate the services of 12 union leaders without holding an inquiry, citing threats, intimidation, and an atmosphere of violence. The Labour Court found no convincing evidence of threats or violence by the union leaders. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the use of extraordinary powers was not justified, and ordered the reinstatement of the 12 dismissed workers with back wages for six months preceding the order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the reinstatement of the dismissed workers and the regularization of casual laborers. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing workers' grievances and maintaining institutional interests while ensuring economic justice for labor. TFAI was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 in costs to the Union.