Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Moot court problem Moot court problem Moot court problem Moot court problem Moot court problem
Typology: Study notes
1 / 22
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
i. LIST OF CASES
The appellants in this instant case have exercised the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution.
Statement of Facts. ļ· Sadanand was an employee of Capital Corporation in 1988, and was hired to do the work of a machine operator. ļ· On the 22nd^ of November 1990, there was a scuffle between two employees, and Sadanand who was working at the time went to pacify the situation. While he went to do that, the machine Sadanand was operating was left activated with raw materials inside of it. ļ· By the time Sadanand returned, an entire 20-22 minutes later, the raw materials had already been damaged and rendered unusable. It is to be noted that Sadanand knew that the raw materials were sensitive in nature. ļ· The loss of the raw materials amounted to a total of 15,000 INR; and due to the non- availability of raw materials, the Corporation also lost out on a deal that could have made them close to 10 Lakh INR. ļ· A disciplinary committee was set up to review the conduct of Sadanand and the committee found him to be negligent and initially suspended him for a period of 1 month. Sadanand also accepted his mistake. ļ· Furthermore, despite being suspended for a month, Sadanand returned to work on the 24th of November. This caused the disciplinary committee to review their decision and they decided to dismiss him from his job due to his negligent behaviour. ļ· Sadanand filed a case in the Labour Tribunal, and both the Labour Tribunal and the High Court erroneously awarded the judgement in favour of Sadanand, due to which Capital Corporation has appealed this instant case to the Supreme Court in the interest of Justice, and Equity.
It is submitted before this Honorable Court that Sadanandās action were negligent in nature, and the counsel for the appellant will attempt to establish the same through 3 distinct parameters ā firstly, that there was an existence of a duty of care; secondly, the defendant was in breach of the duty of care; and thirdly, the victim suffered injuries and damages as a consequence thereof. ISSUE 2 ā WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF SADANAND WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND DID THE LABOR TRIBUNAL HAVE THE POWER TO RE- EXAMINE THE CASE? It is submitted before this Honorable Court that Sadanandās dismissal was in accordance with the law of the land, and that the Labor Tribunal did not have powers to re-examine the case as there was a departmental inquiry constituted which was non-bias in nature. ISSUE 3 ā WHETHER GRAVITY OF OFFENCE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE? It is contended before this Honorable Court that gravity of an offence has to be taken into consideration while considering dismissal of an employee; and such dismissal has to pass the doctrine of proportionality which the dismissal of the defendant does in this instant case.
Issue No 1, - Whether Sadanandās actions were negligent in nature? ļ· It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant that in this instant case, Sadanandās action were negligent in nature. The appellants will attempt to establish the same in the following arguments. ļ· It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that to establish a case of negligence, one needs to establish 3 distinct parameters ā i. The existence of a duty of care; ii. There was a breach in the duty of care; iii. The victim suffered injuries and damages as a consequence thereof.^1 The counsels will attempt to establish each of the above-mentioned parameters. i.) The defendant owed a duty of care to the appellant. ļ· It is the humble submission of the appellant that the law implies a duty of care on a party who may or may not have been negligent, if the party possessed special skills or attributes and thus the common neighbour (in this case, the plaintiff) trusts him to exercise a duty of care. If there is a case of negligent behaviour, though honest and unintentional, a breach of duty may give rise to a cause of action.^2 In this instant case, Sadanand was hired for utilising his skills as a machine operator, a duty which he ignored when he went to pacify a squabble between the workers, something that was completely out of the scope of his job. ļ· Furthermore, in the landmark case of State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh, the court held that to establish duty of care, 3 further parameters have to be established ā a. Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable? (^1) Minor Veeran vs T.V. Krishnamoty, AIR 1966 Kerela 172 (^2) Hedley byrne v Heller Elaw 1964 AC 465 House of Lords
ļ· It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that there was a clear breach in the duty of care displayed by the defendant. It is argued that a man/institution is acting unreasonably if he holds such professional skills which requires him to show an average amount of competence in relations to discharge of proper duty and care in regards to the profession and he fails to take adequate measures and ends up hurting the victims.^6 In this instant case, Sadanand was hired for the specific purpose of operating machines, he was selected because he holds such professional expertise. However, he wilfully ignored his responsibilities and that resulted in the loss of an extraordinary amount of money. ļ· In the landmark case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, the court defined the essence of negligence as ā āNegligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.ā^7 It is submitted before this Honourable Court that in this instant case, a bare perusal of the facts would make any layman prudent person understand that leaving the machine whilst it was on and had raw materials was not the right thing to do, hence the action amounted to negligence. ļ· Furthermore, a worker can forsake liability from a negligent act, if said act happened during the course of their employment.^8 However, a bare perusal of the facts of the case would stipulate the evident fact that stopping the squabble between the two employees was not part of Sadanandās ordinary course of employment. He was hired for his skills as a machine operator, and nothing else. Sadanand cannot forsake liability in this instant case. ļ· Thus, one the basis of the above facts and arguments it is clear that there was a clear breach in the duty of care by Sadanand.
ļ· It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that in this instant case, the dismissal of Sadanand was in accordance with the law of the land. The counsels for the appellants will attempt to establish the same in subsequent arguments. ļ· It is submitted before this Honorable Court that for the dismissal of Sadanand to be valid, he has to come under the purview of a āworkmanā under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The definition can be understood as, - ā(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.ā^10 The court, in Devinder Singh v Municipal Council analyzed Section 2(s) and held that for a workman to fall under Section 2(s) of the ID Act of 1947, the following factors have to be fulfilled - (a) whether there is a Master-Servant relationship; (b) when a person is performing various functions which overlap in their characteristics, the nature of main function for which the claimant is employed should be considered; (c) work is either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical operational, clerical or supervisory in nature, the mere fact that it does not fall within the exception would not render a person to be workman; and (d) that the exceptions are not applicable. Further, designation, source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment should not be considered while determining whether a person can be termed as "workman."^11 (^10) Section 2(s) ā Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. (^11) Devinder Singh v Municipal Council , (2011) 6 SCC 584
It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant that in this instant case, the work Sadanand did was technical in nature, as he was a machine operator. Furthermore, there was a direct master-servant relationship as he was an employee in the company; and lastly, he does not fall under any of the exceptions under Section 2(s) of the ID Act of
(^17) The Punjab National Bank Ltd v Its Workmen (1960) 1 SCR 806; AIR 1960 SC
ļ· It is argued by the counsels for the appellants that punishment given by an employer to an employee has to fit the doctrine of proportionality. The Doctrine of Proportionality has been understood by the Court as the following, - 'Proportionality' is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities.ā āDe Smith states that 'proportionality' involves 'balancing test' and 'necessity test'. Whereas the former ('balancing test') permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations, the latter ('necessity test') requires infringement of human rights to the least restrictive alternative.ā^18 It is argued in this instant case that the punishment given to Sadanand matches the doctrine of proportionality, and the two tests, - i.e., the balancing test and the necessary test. Sadanandās actions led to the Corporation losing Lakhs of Rupees, and therefore taking this into consideration, it is only fair that be removed from this job due to this extremely negligent behavior. Furthermore, the question of arbitrariness does not arise in this instant case as Sadanand was informed that an inquiry committee was being set up, and the defendant himself stipulated to his mistake. ļ· It is further argued that once the misconduct of an employee is proved either through an inquiry or the evidence placed before a tribunal, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in those cases wherein the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.^19 In this instant case, the conduct of the employee was proved through the inquiry process, and a punishment was handed out. The Labor Tribunal has no power to interfere in said punishment. ļ· The counsels for the appellants submit that a proved misconduct is the antithesis of victimization in an industrial relations setting. It is obligatory on part of the workman concerned to plead and prove the acts of victimization.^20 It is humbly submitted before this (^18) Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669 (^19) Eastern Electric & Trading Co. v. Baldev Lal, (1975) 4 SCC 684 (^20) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489
