057-NLR-NLR-V-75-THE-CEYLON-WORKERS-CONGRESS-Appellant-and-THE-ANGLO-CEYLON-AND-GENERAL-ESTAT.pdf
Ceylon Workers Congress v. Anglo-Ccylon and General
Estate Co., Ltd.
325
1972Present: Samerawickrame, J.
THE CEYLON WORKERS’ CONGRESS, Appellant, and THEANGLO – CEYLON AND GENERAL ESTATES CO., LTD., andanother, RespondentsS. C. 17/70—L. T. 9(1389 and 1390
Industrial dispute—Domestic inquiry—Refusal of workman to take part in it—Dismissalof workman on that ground alone—Invalidity.
The refusal of a workman to take part in a domestic inquiry without goodreason does not, by itself, amount to grave misconduct meriting the terminationof his services.
Appeal from an order of a Labour Tribunal.N.Satyendra, for the applicant-appellant.S. C. Crosselte-Thambiah, for the employers-respondents.Cur. adv. vuU.
328
SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Ceylon Workers Congress v. Anglo-
Ceylon, and. General Estates Co., Ltd.
February 17, 1972. Samerawickbame, J.—
The employers-respondents stated that they terminated the servicesof Govindan for gross misconduct in that (a) he referred to the SupervisingKangany in obscene and disparaging terms, and {b) he created adisturbance in the estate office at a domestic inquiry and refused to complywith instruction given to him by the Assistant Superintendent and thePersonal Officer. They terminated Veerammah’s services as theywere obliged in law to do so. .
The President of the Labour Tribunal was unable to find in favourof the respondents on the first ground. The balance of evidence seemedto indicate that the Supervising Kangany had used abusive languageto Govindan when the latter had raised a question in regard to the workallotted to him. There was some evidence that it was Govindan whohad in the first instance used abusive language. In the state of theevidence the President was unable to make a finding that there wasmisconduct.
The President has also not found that Govindan was guilty of grosBmisconduct by reason of the fact that he created a disturbance at thedomestic inquiry. He found that Govindan had refused to take partin the domestic inquiry and rejected the reasons put forward on behalfof Govindan in justification for his refusal. He then stated, “ Therefore,it is my view that any worker refusing to take part in a disciplinaryinquiry conducted by the Personal Officer would be committing an actof. insubordination and therefore of misconduct justifying termination.For these reasons, I hold that the termination of the services of theapplicant was for just cause. ”
A domestic inquiry by a third party is no doubt an accepted practiceand beneficial both to the employer and the workman. A refusal totake part in such an inquiry without some good reason is to be deprecated..Further a workman who refuses to participate takes the risk of an adversefinding being made without an opportunity to the person holding theinquiry to consider his version. It does not, however, appear to me thatthe refusal to take part in the inquiry by itself amounts to gravemisconduct which merits dismissal. As the sole ground on which theapplications to the labour tribunal were dismissed fails, reinstatementmust be ordered. As Govindan was to some extent to blame for thetermination of services by his unjustifiable refusal to take part in thedomestic inquiry, I am not prepared to order back wages except to someextent in respect of the period subsequent to the order of the labourtribunal. I think the ends of justice will be met if the respondents areordered to pay each of the workmen a sum of Rs. 000 as back wages.I accordingly set aside the order of the President of the Labour Tribunaland make order directing the reinstatement of Govindan and Veerammahwith effect from 15th March, 1972, and further .order the respondentsto pay to each of them the sum of Rs. 900.
Order aet aai&e.