Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V.

A.S Pachhapure, J.:— The petitioner in all these petitions is a manufacturer of automobile parts in the name and style “M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd.” and supply the parts to M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited. The last respondent in all these petitions is the Enquiry Officer whereas the other respondents are the workmen of the petitioner company.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:

An incident occurred in the premises of the petitioner company on 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m One Sri. Lokesh Y.L, working as Junior Officer-in-charge, in the petitioner company received the information from the Assistant Supervisor that a workman by name Sri. Kusumadhara slipped and fell down while working on C5 Press Machine. An ambulance was secured to shift the said injured for first-aid, meanwhile some workmen brought the injured-Sri. Kusumadhara on a bench and took him to the first-aid centre. Many other Management Staff were also present at the time. They went to the first-aid centre to ensure necessary medical treatment. When Sri. A.V Ravishankar, a person in the Management Staff tried to go ahead to understand the nature of the injury, a workman by name Sri. Thimmaraju kicked him from back and thereby Sri. A.V Ravishankar fell down in the first-aid centre. Suddenly the other workmen team members viz., 1) Sri. Hameed, 2) Sri. Jai Bheem, 3) Sri. Mahendra, 4) Sri. Vijay S., 5) Sri. Santhosh Kumar Gowda, 6) Sri. Girish V., 7) Sri. Santhosh Kumar, 8) Sri. Venkateshaiah, 9) Sri. Manjunath N.S, 10) Sri. Bheemappa Marugutti, 11) Sri. Vasanth Kumar, 12) Sri. Chandrashekarappa H.N, 13) Sri. Shivakumar M.K, 14) Sri. Basavaraj Sindagi, 15) Sri. Kumar Swamy, 16) Sri. Prakash B., 17) Sri. Shashidhara B., 19) Sri. Aiyappa, 20) Sri. Srinivas B.C, 20) Sri. Bhaskar and 21) Sri. Prakash H.R, said to have started beating Sri. A.V Ravishankar and therefore, Sri. Deepak W.R took Sri. A.V Ravishankar inside the first-aid centre and locked the door from inside. Sri. Santhosh Kattimani, the Union President came to the first-aid centre and forcibly opened the door and instigated the other workmen to beat Sri. Masaaki Imanaga, Managing Director, Sri. A.V Ravishankar and Sri. Deepak W.R, and started shouting loudly asking to beat them, not to leave and to kill. Sri. Santhosh Kattimani instigated the workmen to kill Sri. A.V Ravishankar and Sri. Girish, took a window wooden frame and hit Sri. A.V Ravishankar on his head causing deep injury and there was bleeding. They continued to beat Sri. A.V Ravi shankar and caused bodily injury. Many other workmen were also continued to beat Sri. A.V Ravishankar. Tables, computers, medical instruments and other equipment of first aid centre were damaged and destroyed by the said workmen. At the same time Sri. Vikram T.V was also beaten up by some of the workmen, as a result, he fell-down in the drainage and they kicked him. He was also shifted to the hospital and in the incident, a gold chain was also snatched. All the injured were shifted in a vehicle to the hospital for the purpose of medical treatment and meanwhile Police arrived, before whom a complaint came to be lodged on the aforesaid facts against the workmen who are the respondents in all these petitions [except the last respondent, who is enquiry officer]. The complaint was registered in Crime No. 173/2011 of Bidadi Police Station and after investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid against the workmen/accused in C.C No. 1005/2011 before the JMFC., for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 356, 427, 504, 506, 114 r/w. Section 149 IPC.

Since the aforesaid acts by the workmen constituted misconduct as per Clause 26 of the Companies Standing Orders, in order to maintain discipline, the petitioner company suspended the workmen/respondents against whom the complaints were received and issued show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet dated 18.04.2011 As the explanations offered by the said workman were not satisfactory, the petitioner initiated domestic enquiry against them by appointing an independent Enquiry Officer, i.e, the last respondent in each of the petitions.

In the context of these facts, the workman/respondents instituted O.S No. 326/2011 to O.S No. 331/2011 against the petitioners and the Enquiry Officer, seeking stay of the Domestic Enquiry proceedings till disposal of the criminal trial in C.C No. 1005/2011. They also filed an application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction to stay the enquiry proceedings initiated against the said workmen on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 18.04.2011 till conclusion of the criminal trial. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material placed on record, granted stay of the domestic enquiry till disposal of criminal trial in C.C No. 1005/2011 vide its Order dated 13.10.2011 in all the suits. Aggrieved by the Orders, the petitioner company preferred appeals in M.A Nos. 56/2011 to 61/2011 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara. The learned Senior Civil Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties, modified the Orders of the learned Civil Judge, granted stay of the domestic enquiry till disposal of the suits. Aggrieved by the Orders, the present petitions have been filed to quash the Order granting stay of the domestic enquiry.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

4. The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to call for interference in the impugned orders of the Courts below staying the domestic enquiry?

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charge against the workmen/respondents is not grave in nature and does not involve complicated questions of law and facts and therefore he submits that the Courts below committed an error in staying the departmental proceedings. He also submits that the respondents/workmen have not proved on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence that there is a charge of grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and facts. He would further contend that majority of the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges against the workmen/respondents in the criminal case are altogether different and therefore, he contends that there was no justification in granting stay of the departmental proceedings. On this aspect of the matter, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2012-I-LLJ-320 (SC) [Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G Vittal Rao]. So also, it is his submission that even in case if the respondents/workmen are acquitted in the criminal case, there is no impediment for employer to proceed on with the departmental enquiry and in such circumstances, grant of stay of the departmental enquiry by the Courts below is redundant and it causes irreparable loss and injury to the employer. On this aspect of the matter, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2009-AIR Kar-412 [Nanjunda v. Chamrajendra Zoological Garden]. It is his further submission that when the domestic enquiry is in progress, grant of injunction by the trial Court restraining the domestic enquiry is improper and on the basis of the decision reported in FJR Vol. 51 page 300 [Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Ramdas Trimbak Deshmukh], he submits that the Courts below exceeded the jurisdiction in granting stay of departmental enquiry.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/workmen supporting the Judgments of the Courts below contended that the charge against the workmen is of grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and facts and therefore, the Courts below have rightly stayed the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the suit and as there is concurrent finding of facts on the question of prima facie case and balance of convenience, it is not proper in the writ jurisdiction to go into the facts and therefore, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Further, he submits that the respondents/workmen are promptly attending the criminal Court on each of the dates and as of now the matter stands for framing charges, at the most a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the criminal case within a specified time limit. So that, there may not be any injustice to both the parties. On this aspect of the matter, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2008-1-LLJ-509 (Cal) [Joseph Tigga v. Union of India]. On these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. As could be seen from the copy of the plaint produced by the petitioner, there is a specific plea in the plaint that the charges against the respondents/workmen are grave in nature and such being the case, complicated questions of law and facts are involved and therefore they have pleaded that it is just and proper to stay the departmental proceedings till disposal of the criminal case. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for temporary injunction, the workmen have contended that they have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in their favour.

7. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that there are grave charges against the respondents/workmen in the criminal cases and there are complicated questions of law and facts as well. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the aforesaid questions. Therefore, in the writ jurisdiction it may not be proper to interfere with such findings.

8. But, anyhow, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the charges against the respondents/workmen, both in the departmental proceedings and also in the criminal case in para 19 of the petition, has stated different charges in the departmental enquiry and also the charges in the criminal case. As could be seen from the charges in the departmental enquiry, there is a charge against the respondents/workmon; (1) Clause 26.1: Absence from work place during working hours without permission, (2) Clause 26.11: Willful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior and (3) Clause 26.17: Riotous or disorderly behaviour or any act subversive of discipline, either committed during working hours and/or within the company premises or after or during working hours and outside the premises if such conduct has a bearing on his employment or employee(s) or on the reputation of the company. As could be seen from the charges in the criminal cases, they are under Sections 143, 147, 324, 356, 504, 506, 114 r/w. Section 149 IPC. As could be seen from the allegations in the complaint, there is a specific plea in the said criminal case that the respondents/workman caused assault on the management staff on 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m, after Kusumadhara, an employee slipped and fell down while working on C5 Press Machine. But, anyhow, as could be seen from the averments in the writ petition as well, in para 7, the petitioner states as under:

“On 19.03.2011, at around 10.30 p.m, the respondents with other union functionaries stage____managed____an accident, wherein it was made to appear that one employee by named Mr. Kusumadhara allegedly slipped and had a fall in the press area and the respondents/workmen using this as a ruse rushed to the place of the alleged fall and created a ruckus over there.”

[emphasis supplied by me]

So, according to the employer all that incident which is said to have been happened on 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m was stage managed. It is relevant to note that it is only on the basis of the said complaint filed by Sri. Lokesh Y.L, a Junior Officer [HR] that an investigation was held and a charge-sheet was laid against the respondents/workman. All the witnesses in the charge-sheet filed by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C are the witnesses even in the departmental enquiry. But, prima facie it appears that subsequent to the incident, the employer termed the said incident as stage managed. Apart from this, though in the complaint, only 22 persons were named as culprits, the enquiry initiated against more than 22 person. So, considering the rival pleas of both the parties, there appear to be grave and serious questions of law and facts, which arise for consideration in view of subsequent events stated above and therefore, I am of the opinion that as held by the Apex Court in 2012-1-LLJ-320-(SC) [Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G Vittal Rao]:

“Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. In case the criminal case does not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the same at an early date. The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindicated, and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”

So, in view of the principles laid-down in the decision referred to supra and also considering the peculiar facts, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out by the respondents/workmen for grant of temporary injunction.

9. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as 13 workmen are under suspension and that the subsistence allowance is being paid by the petitioner to the said workmen and claims that the petitioner company is put to untold hardship as it cannot proceed on with the enquiry in view of the Order granted by the Courts below. But, at the same time, it is relevant to note that there are complicated questions of law and fact, it is necessary to dispose of the criminal cases before commencement of departmental enquiry and to avoid hardship to the parties, it appears just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the criminal cases within a fixed time limit. On this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the respondents/workman has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in FLR 1993 (66) page 660 [A.R Kavi v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.*]. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in FLR 1993 (66) page 1038 [P.J Sundarrajan v. Unit Trust of India, wherein it is held:

“Heard parties. We have perused the records. We are of the view that the departmental enquiry should be stayed till the trial which is stated to be pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras is completed. The enquiry shall accordingly stand stayed. However, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, if they so choose, after the Trial Court has rendered its judgment, whether or not any appeal is taken from that judgment to a higher court. We are told that the trial has been pending since May, 1989, and many witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly we expect the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

So, as could be seen from the facts stated above and the principles in the decisions referred to supra, it is relevant to note that the charge-sheet against the respondent workman in the departmental enquiry was led on 18.04.2011 whereas in the criminal case, the respondents/workmen are promptly attending the Court. The said matter is now posted for framing charges and if a direction is issued to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the criminal case within a specified time, no injustice will be caused even to the petitioner as they are liberty to continue departmental proceedings, even if the respondents/workmen are acquitted, the enquiry may continue wherein in case, if they are convicted in the said criminal cases, it would be an added benefit to the employer. So, taking into consideration these all circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner have not made out any grounds to call for interference in the Orders passed by the Courts below staying departmental enquiry. Hence, I answer the point in negative. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate before whom the proceedings in C.C No. 1005/11 are pending is directed to dispose of the said case within a period of 5 [Five] months from the date of communication of this Order.