Case Law Details
Management FDC Limited Vs B. Rajakumar (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court addressed the case between FDC Limited (management) and B. Rajakumar (workman), where the Labour Court had earlier ruled in favor of the workman, ordering his reinstatement with back wages. The workman, employed as a Sales Promotion employee, had been transferred from Mangalore HQ to Solan HQ in December 2008 but failed to report for duty despite multiple reminders. This non-compliance led to a charge sheet being issued against him, accusing him of misconduct, including unauthorized absence and disobedience of orders. The subsequent domestic inquiry found the workman guilty, resulting in his termination.
The main issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Labour Court’s decision to reinstate the workman was justified. The Court found that the Labour Court had strayed from the core issue raised by the government—whether the termination was justified—by delving into the validity of the transfer order. The Court determined that the transfer was within the authority of the management, as the General Manager had authorized the Regional Manager to make the transfer, which was in line with company policies. The workman had not challenged the transfer order, making the termination for disobedience of the transfer lawful. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the management, setting aside the Labour Court’s order for reinstatement and confirming the termination. The workman’s petition for back wages was also dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The Labour Court by the impugned award set aside the termination order passed against the workman and directed reinstatement of the workman to the original post, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits with 50% backwages from the date of termination, i.e., 23.12.2009 till reinstatement.
2. WP No.36181/2012 is preferred by the management. WP No.49426/2012 is preferred by the workman assailing the impugned order insofar as holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper and to the extent of denial of full backwages.
3. Parties herein are referred to as per the ranking in WP No.36181/2012 as petitioner-management and respondent-workman for the sake of the convenience.
4. The petitioner is the Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its Corporate Office at Mumbai. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and has its plants at Jogeshwari in Mumbai, Goa and Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. The respondent-workman was employed in Mangalore Headquarters (for short ‘HQ’) of the petitioner-company as Sales Promotion employee (Medical Representative). The respondent-workman was transferred from Mangalore HQ to Solan HQ with effect from 05.12.2008 in consonance with the terms and conditions of employment of the respondent. The respondent failed to report for work at Solan HQ, in spite of several reminders sent by the petitioner-management to the respondent-workman calling upon him to report for work at Solan HQ.
5. The respondent-workman having failed to report to duty and having remained continuously absent, in the work place at Solan HQ, charge sheet was issued for refusing to report for work at Solan HQ, enquiry proceedings were conducted, Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted the report holding that the respondent-workman guilty of charges leveled against him in the charge sheet.
6. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment terminating the service of the respondent-workman with immediate effect. The respondent-workman aggrieved by the order of termination placed a dispute and filed claim statement, the petitioner objected to the claim statement by filing counter statement.
7. The Labour Court framed additional issues for consideration:
1. “Whether I party is ‘workman’ as defined under Sec.2(s) of ID Act?
2. Whether D.E. held is fair and proper?
3. What Order?”
8. The Labour Court, on issue No.2 held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner- management was fair and proper. On the question of victimization and other aspect, the evidence was let in and by the impugned order, Labour Court allowed the claim statement.
9. Heard Sri C. K. Subramanya, learned counsel for Sri B. C. Prabhakar, for the petitioner-Company and Sri M. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondent-workman and perused the material on record.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds:
11. The conclusion arrived by the Labour Court that the General Manager-HR has no authority to authorize the Regional Manager, empowering him to transfer the Medical Representative, is contrary to the material on record and Labour Court has failed to consider the appointment order of the respondent was signed by the General Manager and General Manager holds the same grade and powers, therefore, so long as the authorization empowering the Regional Manager is issued by any General Manager would be valid.
ii. The Labour Court has failed to notice that the no such contention has been raised either in the claim statement or in the evidence to hold that the Regional Manager was having control over the medical representative working in the State of Karnataka only and that he had no right to transfer the medical representative to any other State.
iii. The Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the point of reference raised by the Government was whether termination of the workman was valid, and the reasoning arrived by the Labour Court is that the transfer itself is invalid, in the absence of any challenge by the workman to the order of transfer.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman would contend that the Labour Court having rightly held that the transfer order was bad in law was not justified in awarding only 50% back wages, which order needs interference by this Court.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering, with the reasons as assigned in impugned order and would the same warrant any interference by this Court?”
13. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
14. Government of Karnataka in its order of reference has raised the following points for dispute for adjudication:
15. The points of dispute raised by the Government was:
i. Is the management of FDC Limited, justified in terminating the services of Sri B. Rajakumar with effect from 23.12.2009?
ii. If not, to what the relief the workman is entitled to?
16. The claim statement of the respondent-workman was a prayer seeking to quash the order of termination and directing the management to reinstate him without consequential benefits. The respondent-workman was issued with the charge sheet dated 23.02.2009 for refusing to report for work at the transferred location and charges against the respondent was for the following service of misconduct:
i. “Unauthorisedly working at Mangalore Headquarter from 5.12.2008 till 8.1.2009.
ii. Absent without leave, without prior sanction for more than a month.
iii. Holding the Company’s property including stationery and not using the same for bonafide purpose.
iv. Refusing to respond to the communications addressed to him by the Company.
v. Disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of reporting at assigned Headquarter as per the terms and conditions of your employment.
vi. Any act subversive of discipline while in the employment of the Company.”
17. The reply submitted by the workman to the charge sheet leveled against the workman finds place at paragraph No.5 of Annexure-B, which reads as under:
“5.For all reasonable and lawful order of the company I have complied the same in the best interest of the company. Please note that under the guise of management’s right, against the interest of the company the management has been dealing with me since 2006. Can you term such actions is in interest of the company. I feel the management has violated the sanctity of the terms of the appointment and now attempts were being made to blame me!”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Labour Court on the sole premise that the General Manager-HR had no authority to authorize the Regional Manager empowering him to transfer the Medical Representative is without considering Ex-M.11, which has been issued by the officer, who is holding the rank of the General Manager and the appointment order of the respondent-workman has been signed by the officer. The appointment orders of the Medical Representatives are issued by the General Manager-HR and as long as the General Manager authorizes the Regional Manager, the Regional Manager has enormous power to transfer the Medical Representative and thus, the contention of the respondent-workman that the Regional Manager was not authorized to transfer the respondent-workman outside the State falls.
19. It is relevant to note that the point of dispute stated supra, by the Government was regarding the termination of the workman is justified, the transfer of the respondent-workman was not assailed before any authority, and thus, the transfer as on the date of reference was sustainable and thus, the reasoning arrived at by the Labour Court warrants interference, as the Labour Court deviated itself from the points of dispute raised, which is impermissible in law and the Labour Court could not have gone into the question, whether the transfer order is valid or invalid and whether it was passed by the competent person as the order of transfer issued to the respondent-workman remained un-assailed.
20. The charges issued against the workman was for disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of reporting to duty that was assigned as per the terms and conditions of the employment. The word ‘disobedience’ means refusal to obey or negligence in obeying a command; violation or disregard to a rule or prohibition. The Random House Dictionary, gives the meaning of ‘insubordination’ as ‘not submitting to authority; disobedient, one who is insubordinate’. Therefore, where a workman disobeys a lawful order as in the instant case, the transfer order un-assailed and stands binding on the respondent-workman, he has to be held guilty of ‘insubordination’ and such ‘insubordination’ would amount to indiscipline.
21. In American words and phrases the word ‘insubordination’ has been defined to mean ‘insubordination in civil service implies intentional, willful disobedience’. An employee should obey all lawful orders given to him by his employer and it is the duty of the workman to comply with the lawful orders of the employer because obedience of superior officer and loyalty to the management are inherent in jural relationship of master and servant and there may not be prescribed. Refusal to obey a lawful order of transfer constitutes willful disobedience and insubordination, as held in the case of A. A. Fernandes vs. Modern Mills Ltd1.
22. In the case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd Vs. M.S. Ajmere2 the Division Bench of the Mumbai High Court held that the concept of disobedience is implicit in the fact that officer receiving the order is subordinate to officer giving the order and a lawful order has to be obeyed, unless there is good justification for not complying with such a lawful order. It is this conduct of declining to obey an order which not only results in disobedience, but the conduct of the workman would also amount to subordination.
23. In the instant case, the respondent-workman refused to obey the lawful order of transfer constituting willful disobedience and insubordination, the Labour Court totally lost sight of this fact and the conclusion arrived by the Labour Court directing reinstatement warrants interference by this Court and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioner-management and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. WP No.36181/2012 filed by the management is hereby allowed and WP No.49426/2012 filed by the workman is hereby dismissed.
ii. The impugned order of the Labour Court 18.02.2012 in I.D.R No.16/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, D.K., Mangalore is hereby set aside.
iii. The order of the termination passed by the Disciplinary Authority stands confirmed.
Notes:-
1 (1990) 1 LLJ 538
2 (1980) 1 LLJ 295
Author Bio
