V MANOHARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has sought for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Award dated June 18, 2002 passed by the first Respondent in I.D. No. 109/98 and to consequently direct the second Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service, back-wages and other attendant benefits.

(2.) The Petitioner herein joined the services of the second Respondent company as early as 1978. The Petitioner states that he was one of the members of SRP Tools Employees' Union, which was the only recognised Union functioning in the second Respondent company. As regards the Petitioner's unauthorised absence in reporting to duty, proceedings were initiated by the Management by issuing show cause notice. Ultimately, charge memo was issued on April 20, 1996 stating that the Petitioner had stayed away from the work for 101 days and out of 101 days, the Petitioner had absented from work unauthorisedly for 66 days during the period April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. In view of the habitual absence from work without permission and in terms of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Rules, the same amounting to misconduct, the second Respondent establishment, hence, called upon the Petitioner to show cause within 72 hours of receipt of the memo as to why appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of his service, should not be initiated against him. The Petitioner sent reply on April 27, 1996 stating that on account of family circumstances, which were unavoidable, the Petitioner had to take leave during the period April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. The Petitioner assured that in future, he would avoid taking leave. In the circumstances, the Petitioner expressed his regret as to what had happened. On May 25, 1996, notice of enquiry was issued to the Petitioner holding that the reply given by the Petitioner was not satisfactory. The Petitioner was called upon to appear for the enquiry. Subsequently, on July 10, 1996, a letter was issued by the second Respondent modifying the charge memo dated April 20, 1996 thereby restricting the unauthorised absence for 29 days for the period from January 1, 1996 to March 31, 1996. Ultimately, on a finding given in the domestic enquiry, as per the proceedings dated August 18, 1997, the second Respondent passed an order dismissing the Petitioner from the services with immediate effect. Aggrieved of the same, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court and sought for reinstatement. The Labour Court, by its proceedings dated June 18, 2002, passed an order confirming the decision of the Management to dismiss the Petitioner from service, thereby, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for reinstatement. As against the same, the Petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that while the first charge memo was issued on April 20, 1996 giving the period of unauthorised absence as 66 days, the second charge memo issued restricting the period to 29 days itself shows that the allegations are totally untrue. When the charge already made had undergone a change, further proceedings by the second charge memo is unsustainable.