P P PONNAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant workman was the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 4869 of 1987 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 11-7-1991. The 2nd respondent is the employer. The appellant was working as headload worker for the 2nd respondent. On 7-3-1983 a show cause notice was given regarding alleged misconduct and then on 8-3-1983 he was suspended pending domestic enquiry. By notice dated 14-3-1983, he was informed that an Advocate was appointed inquiring officer. The allegation was that he beat one of the co-workers while the latter was doing work, and his past conduct was also not good. The appellant admitted the incident, but contended that he acted in self defence. The Inquiry Officer found the misconduct proved and the employer dismissed the appellant from service. Thereafter the matter was referred under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.D. No. 2 of 1984 and the Labour Court found that there were no procedural irregularities and that the misconduct was proved. It also held under S.11A that the past conduct referred to in the charge memo-statement of allegations, together with the finding of misconduct, justified the dismissal. This Award was challenged in the O.P., but the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the said judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant workman submits that the employer as well as the Labour Court were wrong in not examining the co-worker whom he had, as admitted by him, beaten while the latter was doing work and if he was examined, the appellant could have cross examined him. The examination of MW1, the Inquiry Officer and the documentary evidence on record (Ext. M1 Enquiry File) was not sufficient evidence. It is also contended that the employer ought not to have taken the past record of the appellant into account for arriving at the quantum of punishment and the Labour Court erred in its approach to this aspect of the problem.

(3.) As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it will be noticed that the appellant admitted having assaulted a co-worker, Kumaran, while the latter was doing his work. The Supervisor gave evidence, as noticed by the Labour Court, that he saw the scuffle between the workman and Kumaran. The Labour Court observed (in Para.2) that: