N BHOOPATHI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. The common feature in all these cases are that the petitioners have challenged an award of the Labour Court and all the petitioners were the employees of the second respondent textile mill. W.P. No. 4854 of 1996 & 4855 of 1996 have been filed challenging a common award dated 15.12.1994 in I.D. Nos. 236/92 and 237/92. W.P. No. 4856 of 1996 has been filed challenging the award in I.D. No. 238/92 dated 15.12.1994. Since the facts in issue are identical, the matter were disposed off by a common order.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would request the Court to first take up W.P. No. 4855/96 and would state that the contention raised therein could be applied in the other two W.Ps also. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4855/96 was employed as a clerk in the second respondent from 1995 on wards and he has stated that he was an office bearer of the Rasipuram Textiles Private Limited Staff Association. According to the petitioner, the Union raised a charted of demands relating to wages, permanency etc., and since there was no settlement, the staff went on strike from 11.11.1998 to 21.11.1998. It is stated by the petitioner that himself and the other two petitioners were quite active in the struggle. A charge sheet dated 17.11.1988 was served on the petitioner and simultaneously, he was placed under suspension, the charge memo contained 4 articles of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.11.1998, denying the charges. It is further stated that after the management received the reply, the petitioner was served with another additional charge sheet on 27.01.1989, which pertained to an incident on 12.11.1988, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have made certain complaints about two Directors to the other two Directors. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.01.1989. A common enquiry was conducted and the petitioner examined three witnesses on his side, which included the petitioner in other two writ petitioners and the management examined four witnesses on their side. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 13.07.1989, holding that all the charges stand proved against the petitioner.

(3.) The second show cause notice was issued on 26.07.1989, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and ultimately, the management by order dated 07.08.1989, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the first respondent in I.D. No. 237/92, the Management resisted the petition by filing a counter statement and the matter was taken up for adjudication. The petitioner examined himself as WWI and marked Exhibits W1 to W27 and the management examined one witness MW-I and marked 41 documents from M1 to M41. Ultimately, the Labour Court by award dated 15.12.1994, dismissed the petition and upheld the order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.