MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent in I. D. No. 11 of 1978 dated 7th September, 1979.

(2.) THE short facts are as follows : The second respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute about the termination of his services on the following allegations. He was working in the Weaving Department of the writ petitioner for the past thirteen years and was an active member of the Textile Workers Union (C. I. T. U. ). A charge memo dated 24th February, 1976, was issued to him, to which he submitted his explanation on 4th March, 1976. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges. As per order dated 12th March, 1976. He was dismissed from service. The enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper. Principals of natural justice had not been followed. This was a clear case of victimisation. Hence, it must be declared that the order of dismissal was illegal and that he must be reinstated. This dispute was referred to the labour court, Madurai, for adjudication under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the act as per G. O. Rt, No. 139, Labour and Employment Department dated 19th January, 1978.

(3.) THE management contended before the Labour Court that the workman was employed in the mill as above beam gaiter and he was required to prove that he was an active member of the union. The workman was on duty on 18th February, 1976. He was informed on that day in person and by usual practice of display in the notice board that his presence was necessary for working on 22nd February, 1976, and that he might avail himself of a substituted holiday on 19th February, 1976, On that day, viz. , 19th February, 1976, the workman came and squatted inside the loom shed and offered dharna, when he had no lawful authority to enter the premises on duty. It was an act of utmost defiance ignoring the definite instructions of his superiors. Three days later, he failed to report for duty though he had knowledge in advance of need of his presence in connection with work. Other workers obeyed the call of the management on 19th February, 1976. The act of the workman in sqauatting inside the loom shed and challenging the authority of the management is an act which deserves to the dealt with seriously. There was no flaw in the conduct of the enquiry. The punishment of dismissal was not out of proportion to the charges levelled.