LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-142

K.N. SATHYANARAYANA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER M/S. VENLON POLYESTER FILM LTD. 26 (P) BELAVADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE 570018

Decided On July 22, 2011
K.N. Sathyanarayana Appellant
V/S
General Manager M/S. Venlon Polyester Film Ltd. 26 (P) Belavadi Industrial Area, Hunsur Road, Mysore 570018 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER designated as a trainee in the respondent -Industry, was on duty in the 1st shift on 20/7/2003, when Mr. Vittal Shakapur, the Head of Slitting Department called him to his cabin at about 12 noon and asked to explain the steps involved in carrying on the slitting operation of a film, whence the petitioner, it is alleged, said that he knew how to carry on the slitting operation of the film better than him and was not competent to ask anything about the slitting operation. In addition, it was alleged that, when Mr. Malik Babu. petitioner's immediate superior, sitting on the chair in front of Mr. Vittal Shakapur, intervened by saying that the petitioner should not show disrespect to the head of the department, petitioner is alleged to have made an indecent remarks stating thus: and when Mr. Vittal Shakapur stated that this would be reported to the Management, petitioner is alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences stating thus: and thereafter left the cabin.The matter when reported to the disciplinary authority, led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet/enquiry notice. Petitioner submitted his explanation dt. 6/8/2003, domestic enquiry was held extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, following which the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charge proved. Respondent, by memo dt. 15/10/2003 -Annex.F, enclosed a copy of the report of the enquiry officer and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed. Petitioner submitted an explanation dt. 21/10/2003. The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation and on an independent assessment of the material on record, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and accordingly by memo dt. 25/10/2003 dismissed the petitioner from training and forfeited the gratuity amount under Sec. 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(2.) THAT order when called in question in a petition under Sec. 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', registered as I.I.D. No. 165/03 before the Labour Court, Mysore, was resisted by filing counter statement of the respondent -Industry denying the allegations. In the premise of pleadings of parties, Labour Court framed 5 issues, the 2nd of which related to validity of the domestic enquiry which was treated as a preliminary issue and after recording the evidence of enquiry officer examined as MW5 and 19 documents marked as Exs. M1 to M19, the Labour Court by order dt. 6/11/2006 answered issue No. 2 in the affirmative holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper.

(3.) SRI . S. B. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is correct in his submission that the findings at paragraphs 14 and 19 of the award are only views recorded by the Labour Court based on the decisions noticed therein and not a finding over the charges.