KENNAMETAL WIDIA (INDIA) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WIDIA (INDIA) LTD.), REPRESENTED BY SRI RATHNAKAR SHETTY, SENIOR MANAGER - HUMAN RESOURCES Vs. SRI K. NAGARAJ, MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a company engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated cutting tools and other engineering items and has employed workmen. The Respondents were employed by the Petitioner. Based on the complaints received from K.T. Machalah and M.C. Manohara, the Petitioner issued show cause notice -cum -charge sheet dated 25.10.2002 to K. Nagaraj, to which he submitted explanation dated 28.11.2002. The Petitioner, being not satisfied with the explanation, initiated disciplinary enquiry against K Nagaraj. The enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 06.02.2003 holding K. Nagaraj guilty of misconduct stipulated at clauses 24(55) and 24(60) of certified standing orders of the company. The Petitioner issued show cause notice dated 07.02.2003 to K. Nagaraj, to which he submitted a reply dated 17.02.2003. Finding the explanation to be unacceptable, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, K. Nagaraj was dismissed from service of the company vide order dated 18.02.2003. Said order was questioned by K. Nagaraj by raising a dispute under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short 'the Act') 1947, which was registered as ID No. 26/2003 in the Labour Court at Bangalore. The Labour Court framed the issues. By an order dated 02.05.2005, the Labour Court held the domestic enquiry as fair and proper. However, the labour court passed an award dated 01.06.2005 setting aside the order of dismissal dated 18.02.2003 passed against K. Nagaraj and has directed the Petitioner to reinstate K. Nagaraj with continuity of service and 75% of backwages. The said award has been questioned in W.P. No. 25428/2005.

(2.) BASED on the complaints of K.T. Machaiah and M.C. Manohara, the Petitioner issued show cause notice dated 03.02 2003 to Rajeev Kulkarni and Cheluva Murthy, who were employed as technicians in the company. Domestic enquiry having been initiated in pursuance of the said show cause notices -cum -charge sheets, the enquiry officer submitted his findings, on the basis of which, show cause notice were issued to the employees, who submitted their reply, which was found to be unacceptable to the Petitioner and hence, accepting the enquiry officer's report, the employees were dismissed from the services of the company. The employees challenged the dismissal orders by raising industrial dispute under Section 10(4 -A) of the Act, which were registered as I.D Nos. 99 and 100 of 2004 in the labour court at Bangalore. The Labour Court by its order dated 02.05.2005 held that, the domestic enquiry conducted is just and proper. Thereafter, by a common award dated 01.06.2005, the Labour Court allowed the petitions, set -aside the orders of dismissal of the employees from service and has directed the Petitioner to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service with all consequential benefits also entitling the workmen to 75% of the backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Questioning the said common award, management has filed W.P.N 0.989/2006.

(3.) SRI M.C. Narasimhan, learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand by taking me through the record of the case would submit that, the Petitioner has not established any misconduct having been committed by the workmen and the dismissal of the workmen by the Petitioner being wholly illegal, the Labour Court is justified in setting aside the order of dismissal end in directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. learned Counsel submits that, the labour court has correctly considered the materials on record and its findings and conclusions being with reference to the materials on record and the law applicable to the matters, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for.