LAWS(KAR)-2008-3-74

L.M. GLASFIBER GENERAL EMPLOYEES UNION REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI C.M. PRASANNA Vs. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER AND THE MANAGEMENT, L.M. GLASFIBER INDIA PVT. LTD.

Decided On March 07, 2008
L.M. Glasfiber General Employees Union Rep. By Its General Secretary Sri C.M. Prasanna Appellant
V/S
Assistant Labour Commissioner And Conciliation Officer And The Management, L.M. Glasfiber India Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has questioned the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the first respondent produced at Annexure -MM.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 by the impugned order has declared that, one S.C. Kumaran and C. Narasimhamurthy of the petitioner - Union are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they will not be protected workmen.

(3.) THE Management by its letter dated 4.11.2005 rejected the request for resignation, alleging that, they have willfully participated in the whole process and accepted the promotion, further informed that, if the Team Leaders insist that they should be relieved from said position, the Management will be compelled to relieve them from the service of the Company on the submission of the unconditional resignation letter. On 27.9.2006, the Management reverted as many as 11 Team Leaders to their original position except these two workmen. The Management did not extend the said benefit to these two workmen are concerned. In turn, by charge sheet dated 17,8.2006, these two workmen were charged with an allegation that, their irresponsible act has resulted in theft of company's property, act of subversive of discipline and their act is prejudicial to the interest of the Company, breach of rules and called upon these two workmen to submit the reply. In the meanwhile, they were also kept under suspension. On 4.12.2006, the Enquiry Officer rejected the request of the workmen to seek the assistance of an outsider or an Advocate on the ground that the standing orders of the Company will not permit to engage the outsider or the Advocate. Based on the enquiry report, these two employees were dismissed from service by order dated 25.5.2007. The orders of dismissal are produced by the respondent along with the objection statement at Annexures -R2 and R3.