Case 5

XYZ is a public limited concern having its factory at Yamunanagar with its
registered office at Delhi. It employs 1200 workmen, who are organized in to a
union called the “National Manufacturing Company Mazdoor Union.” Ramjas, a
fitter in the engineering department is the President of the Union, and he
commands considerable respect among the workmen.

On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees at the company led by Ramjas met the
Works Manager and asked him that May 1, may be declared a holiday. The works
manager expressed inability to oblige the Union. Then the situation took an ugly
turn, there was exchange of hot words. Ramjas accused the works manager of
being anti-working class and having callous despot.

The same evening Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked workers to observe
May Day in fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works
manager was also adopted in the meeting.

At the start of the shift at 8:00 am, the next day, i.e. May day, Ramjas went to the
factory, collected a number of workmen, including several office bearers of the
Union and went from department to department urging the workmen to stop work.
Within a short time, a large number of workmen left their workplace and streamed
out. A flag-hosting ceremony was held outside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted
the workers to join the May Day rally later in the evening. The factory did not
work for the rest of the day.

The management issued a charge sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May, 1983 giving details
of the charges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under
Standing Order 24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (See in Annexure I). Ramjas was required
to submit his explanation.

It was stated in the charge sheet that Mr. P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the
company would hold the enquiry on the charge sheet at 11:00 am on 10th May
1983 in the conference hall of the factory.
Ramjas refused to accept the charge sheet. Thereby it was sent to him by Regd.
Post on the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the Notice Board of
the company. The registered cover was backed with the remarks “refused to
accept.”

Ramjas however appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be
permitted to be defended by a lawyer or Mr. Pritam Singh, the General Secy of
the Union who was not the employee of the company. Request of Mr. Ramjas
was turned down by the E.O. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating
that he could not expect justice from the legal advisor of the company who was
biased in favour of management and that he was not given proper opportunity to
defend himself. The E.O recorded the statement and concluded the enquiry
proceedings he found Ramjas guilty of all the charges levelled against him. He
submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the
same to the secretary of the company at the head office for advice. Secy wrote
back that Ramjas should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a
letter to Ramjas terminating his service with immediate effect stating that all the
charges levelled against him were found proved and that he was guilty of
misconduct for which dismissal was the proper punishment.
ANNEXURE I:

24 (a) willful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with

another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.

24 (c) striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the

provisions of any statue or the standing order

24 (g) entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in

accordance with the standing orders.

24 (k) threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory

premises

24 (p) deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or

otherwise, against any officer or employee of the company.
ANNEXURE II:

To,

Shri Ramjas

Fitter, Engg. Deptt

Token No. 1760

Whereas on 30th April, 1983 you along with 20 of your colleagues went to the
office of the works manager, Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your
request to declare May1, 1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated
arguments and used undesirable language against him. And whereas in the
evening of the dame day that is 30th April, 1983 you organized and spoke at a
meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution on condemning the
works manager was passed.

Whereas on the morning of 1st may 1983 you along with other workman of the
factory moved from deptt to deptt and incited the workers to stop work this
resulted in workmen walking out of factory premises for the day.

The above acts of omission and commission on your part amount to misconduct
under section 24 (a), (c), (g ), (k ) & (p ) of the standing orders.

You are hereby require to submit your explanation to the above said acts of
misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be
dismissed from the service of the company.

Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the standing order sin the
matters of the above charge sheet will be held by Sh. P.C. Gupta, legal advisor of
the company at 11:00 am on 10th May 1983 in the conference room of the factory.
You are herby requires to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid time,
date and place.
In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above you are hereby placed
under suspension with immediate effect.
Question:
Do you think the decision of the management was right? Why/ Why not?
Prepare the explanation to the above acts of misconduct as to why Ramjas
should be or should not be dismissed from the service of the company.