MADHAVAN S Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Junior Clerk in 1972. He completed his probation. He was confirmed in service. He was elected as the treasurer of the TVS Workers Union. During his tenure as an office bearer of the Union, the petitioner used to take up the cause of workmen before the management and pursue it seriously. This was not liked by the management. Management issued a charge sheet dated november 25, 1977 that on November 14, 1977 at about 12. 45 p. m. petitioner addressed a small gathering of employees of claims section without obtaining prior permission of the management for holding the meeting and in that meeting he made a derogatory remarks and indecent words inciting the employees, thereby committed serious misconduct in terms of the certified Standing Orders of the company. Petitioner submitted his reply and an enquiry was conducted. One Sri Arvamuthan, was the enquiry officer. Enquiry was not held in accordance with law. Opportunity was also not given to the workmen. The enquiry is nothing but farce in terms of the averments made in the writ petition. The enquiry officer submitted his report. The report was not made available to the petitioner. The enquiry officer Ignored the defence. The management accepted the enquiry report and an order of dismissal was passed. Petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Labour court. Evidence was recorded. The Labour court ruled that the enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter the Labour Court considered the case on merits and upheld the order of dismissal. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) IT is seen from the proceedings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner has chosen to cross-examine the witnesses. Petitioner had the benefit of an assistance from Sri (sic) Enquiry has been held on several dates. Ultimately the enquiry officer has completed the enquiry after providing opportunity to both the parties. The enquiry was closed on December 22, 1977. Thereafter, a show cause notice has been issued and a dismissal order followed. This has been challenged before the Labour Court. The labour Court heard the preliminary issue with regard to enquiry. The Labour Court noticed that the workman has cross examined the witnesses. Labour Court also notices that the workman did not make any request of an assistance of a trade union leader in terms of the enquiry proceedings. Labour Court also notices that no request was made with regard to the written argument. Labour Court after noticing the material on record has chosen to hold that the enquiry is fair and proper. A detailed order is passed. No material has been placed before me to hold against the management.