GENERAL SECRETARY SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW FACTORIES WORKERS UNION Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment it was held that the punishment of reversion passed by the disciplinary authority was proper. The concerned workman was in the employment of Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) the respondent No.1 in this appeal.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The appellant-Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of one of its member questioning correctness of the order passed by respondent No.1 reverting the concerned workman Sh. S. Sivasankara Pillai, Manager, Grade II. He was designated as Manager, Grade II in the respondent No.1s establishment. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct of (1) causing wilful loss to the Corporation; (2) habitual breach of rules; (3) making false allegations against superior officers; (4) gross negligence of duty. The essence of allegations raised against him was that by order dated 1-2-1975 he was put in charge of filling and packing section of that factory. On 8-9-1975 he did not arrange work in the filling section and that occasioned considerable loss to the factory. On 11-9-1975 the filling work suffered for about 1 1/2 hours due to his indifferent attitude. On 16-9-1975 no work was done in the filling and packing sections, though the workmen were ready to work. Because of this non-cooperation and indifference, huge loss was caused to the Corporation. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the employee, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Assistant Personnel Manager of the respondent establishment conducted the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges were proved in the enquiry. After considering the findings of the enquiry officer and seriousness of the charges levelled against the employee, the Management imposed a punishment by reverting the employee as factory clerk, but the salary he was drawing was protected. According to the respondent-Management, he was not dismissed from service by taking a lenient view, even though the misconducts proved in the enquiry were serious.

(3.) The appellant-Union filed statement before the Labour Court questioning the enquiry as well as the punishment imposed. The respondent-management in its pleadings raised three preliminary points: