Violent strike warrants immediate termination without enquiry: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: One-person judging panel Justice Sandeep V. Marn upheld the decision of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. on the dismissal of workers who participated in illegal strikes and violent protests without a preliminary investigation. The court held that if an employee’s misconduct clearly threatens workplace safety, as evidenced by acts of obstruction, intimidation and assault, employers can justify retroactive dismissal in a judicial review. The court confirmed that a pre-dismissal investigation is not required if circumstances at work make it impractical or impossible.

Background

In 1997, employees of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. began a series of strikes following unresolved wage settlement negotiations. This culminated in a stormy demonstration outside the company’s gates. When the situation escalated to physical intimidation and obstruction of other employees, Advani Erlikon fired approximately 35 employees without investigation. The termination notice cited illegal strike and misconduct as reasons. The workers subsequently filed complaints with the Labor Court, which rejected their requests. They appealed to the Industrial Court, which upheld the decision of the Labor Court, leading to this writ petition. The plaintiffs argued that the company’s failure to conduct a disciplinary investigation prior to termination violated the principles of natural justice and deprived them of an opportunity to defend themselves. They claimed that the strike was peaceful and no wrongdoing had been committed.

Arguments

A lawyer for the plaintiffs argued that the dismissal of the complaint by the labor court was wrong, arguing that the company’s decision to terminate without an investigation deprived the workers of due process of law. He stressed that mere participation in strike action should not justify dismissal without a hearing. He further argued that allowing Advani Erlikon to retrospectively present evidence of alleged abuse without first investigating was a violation of labor law principles.

Advani Erlikon objected, arguing that the workers’ actions constituted a serious violation under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Employment Act (MRTU & PULP Act). He cited numerous incidents of obstruction, intimidation and assault, saying these actions created an unsafe environment that prevented a fair investigation. Counsel argued that the company had the right to justify the termination later in court under precedents set out in The workers of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. vs. Motipur Sugar Factorywhich allow dismissal for serious misconduct without investigation in situations that pose a threat to workplace safety.

Reasoning of the court

The court upheld the dismissal on the grounds that the employer had acted within its rights under the MRTU & PULP Act. The court examined the evidence provided and cit Workers of the Motipur sugar factorythe court confirmed that employers are allowed to justify a dismissal in an employment tribunal if an investigation before the dismissal is impractical or impossible.

The court noted that if the employee’s behavior clearly threatens order at the workplace, the requirement for a preliminary investigation is relaxed. The judge noted that “the threat posed by plaintiffs’ conduct rendered the investigation futile; therefore, the company’s retrospective justification was legal and did not conflict with labor principles.” In addition, the court did not find merit in the argument that it was a peaceful agitation, as the records showed acts of violence against management officials and other workers. Thus, the court denied the motion, upholding the dismissals as a necessary action to maintain workplace safety and lawful employment practices.

Decided: 22-10-2024

Quote: 2024:BHC-AS:41999

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: Mr. Rahul Kamerkar

Defendants’ lawyer: Mr. Kiran S. Bapat

Click here to read/download the order