SC upholds reinstatement of 'negligent' workmen

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, SEPT. 16. ``Loss of confidence'' of the management (appellant-sugar company) in an employee ``cannot be subjective based upon the mind of the management'' and ``objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved,'' the Supreme Court has held.

``What must be pleaded and proved to invoke the principle (of `loss of confidence' in the employee in a given case) is that a) the workman is holding a `position of trust and confidence'; b) by abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting the same; and c) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment'' and ``all these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence,'' the Bench said.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu upheld an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which, in effect, on the facts and circumstances of the case, affirmed an order of the `industrial court' directing the reinstatement of certain workmen of the appellant-company, but, `without back wages'.

In reaching its conclusion, the `industrial court', differed from the finding of the `labour court' - that the management lost faith and trust in the concerned workmen (doing the work of `weighment', `punching' and `checking') - and, therefore, they were not entitled for relief of reinstatement, though they were entitled to get half salary with `returning allowance' from the date of dismissal from service till the date of the order of the labour court.

The industrial court said that the employees had not committed any misappropriation of money but were `negligent' in performing their duties. Therefore, the industrial court directed the reinstatement of workmen but without back wages.

``If the employee is deprived of the back salary or returning allowance (in respect of the corresponding period) it will be sufficient punishment,'' and that ``for acts like `negligence' it is not proper to deprive the employee from the relief of reinstatement,'' the industrial court observed.

Against the industrial court's decision both the workmen and the management filed writ petitions, in the High Court.

The High Court did not interfere with the order made by the industrial court.

Both the management and the workmen filed appeals - `cross appeals' - before the apex court against those portions and conclusions of the High Court which went against them.

The Bench which included Mr. Justice S. N. Variava dismissed both the appeals observing that it was open to the parties to work out their respective rights in appropriate proceedings.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : FDI mining projects: Centre to seek States'
           cooperation