A MOHAN KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent - Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.291 of 1996 dated 14.06.2000. By the impugned Award, the punishment given to the petitioner by the second respondent Management, viz., suspension for a period of 20 days was found to be justified.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 23.11.2000. On notice from this Court, the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 10.04.2006. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as a Laboratory Technician in the Karamalai Group Hospitals at Valparai. A complaint dated 09.01.1995 was given by one Muniammal, who was working as a Class IV employee in the hospital, stating that the petitioner had misbehaved with her on 08.01.1995. Based on the complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.01.1995. THE petitioner denied the charges. A domestic enquiry was conducted on 13.03.1995. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of suspension for the period from 28.07.1995 to 16.08.1995.

(3.) THE second respondent-Management had filed a counter statement. Before the Labour Court, with the consent of the parties, 8 documents were filed as Exs.M1 to M8. THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that if the Chief Medical Officer was really prejudiced against the petitioner, even for the proven misconduct, the petitioner should have been dismissed from service. But such a contingency did not arise. THE Labour Court also found that the evidence of Muniammal was acceptable and as she spoke the truth stating that the petitioner prevented her from talking and pushed her aside and also abused her in English and she could not comprehend the words. When he pushed her second time, he caught hold of her neck and hip and pushed her out. As she could not maintain her balance, she had to get support from the side wall. THE Labour Court believed the evidence of the said witness and held that there may be some inconsistencies in the statement but on a overall consideration of the evidence shows that the petitioner had committed the said misconduct. THErefore, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner.