(1.) THE Petitioner/workman was employed by the Respondent/management. Alleging commission of acts of misconduct by the workman, having held a domestic enquiry, based on the enquiry report dated 27.02.2009, the workman was dismissed from service on 7.3.2009.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that after receipt of the enquiry report dated 27.2.2009, show -cause notice with copy of the enquiry report was not issued to the workman i.e., prior to passing of the dismissal order dated 7.3.2009. Thus the action taken by the management vide award dated 2.3.2009 is vitiated and liable to be set aside.
(3.) SRI . Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent - Management after arguing the matter for some time does not dispute the fact that, after receipt of enquiry report dated 27.2.2009, second show -cause notice was not issued to the workman i.e., prior to the passing of the order dated 7.3.2009. In the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Labour Court on issue No. 1 dated 7.9.2009 is erroneous and illegal. The resultant position is that the award being vitiated calls for interference. Sri Ravi Shankar, submits that the management would prove the misconduct of the workman before the Labour Court itself.