COMINCO BINANI ZINC LTD Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O. P. 5425/1990-U is the appellant. That Original petition was filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam dismissing the petitioner's application under S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Deputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for approval of the order of dismissal of the first respondent from service. Learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition taking the view that the District Labour Officer found that the charges levelled against the first respondent were not prima facie established at the domestic enquiry. It was also observed that petitioner had a grudge against respondent who happened to be an office bearer of the trade union. Appellant challenges the order of the second respondent refusing permission under S.33(2)(b) of the Act as also the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The short facts germane for the decision of this appeal are as follows.- First respondent was employed in the Electrolytic plant of the appellant company. He was to attend the cell cleaning job during the shift between 8.00 A. M. and 4.00 P. M. on 8-2-1986. When he was found washing copper rod in the dipping cell, he was Instructed by his superior officer not to clean the copper rod in the dipping cell. First respondent refused to obey this direction. Thereupon he was issued a charge sheet under the Certified Standing Orders of the company, for disobedience of reasonable orders, failure to carry out the work in accordance with the instructions given by superiors and for wilful or serious defect In workmanship When the charge sheet was sought to be served on him on the same day, he refused to accept if. An attempt was made to serve the charge sheet on him at his residence on 11-2-1986. First respondent refused to accept the same. Thereafter on 13-2-1986, he received the charge sheet at the company premises. Consequently he was charge sheeted for refusal to accept the chargesheet in terms of the provisions of the Standing Orders. A domestic enquiry was held in respect of the above charges. Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the evidence recorded at the enquiry, found the delinquent workmen guilty of both charges as per report dated 25-9-1986. On the basis of the report, appellant decided to dismiss first respondent from service. He was dismissed from service as per order dated 4-10-1986. In view of the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the second respondent, an application for approval of the dismissal was filed In conformity with the provisions contained in the proviso to S.33(2)(b) of the Act. First respondent was also paid one month's wages as required by law.

(3.) The District Labour Officer, Aluva dismissed the appellant's application for approval as per his order dated 7-1-1987. That order was challenged by the appellant before this Court in O. P. 1761/1987. First respondent also questioned the correctness of that order by filing O.P. 2733/1987. By judgment dated 21-7-1989, this Court allowed the Original Petitions, quashed the order passed by the second respondent and directed him to dispose of the matter afresh after adverting to all contentions and after giving an effective opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contention. When the matter was again taken up by the second respondent, neither the appellant nor the first respondent adduced fresh evidence, either oral or documentary. Second respondent dismissed appellant's application under S.33(2)(b) of the Act.