ENGINE VALVES LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge dated 16th June, 1987, made in Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1981, dismissing Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1981 filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 17th December, 1980 in I.D. No. 358 of 1977.

(2.) THE appellant company has a factory near Madras, where it manufactures valves for internal combustion engines. THE second respondent had been in the employment of the appellant for over 16 years and for about ten years, he was working as Setter Operator in the Head Disc. Department. THE second respondent was allotted with the work of Crack Detection from 19th May, 1975 and he attended the work between 19th and 23rd May, 1975. After the weekly holidays on 26th May, 1975, it is claimed by the appellant that when the Foreman Mr. Kasi Viswanathan has allotted the detection work to the second respondent, he refused to do the said work and instead he walked straight to the Packing Section. THEreafter the Senior Foreman is said to have taken the second respondent to the Production Manager's room, where he was advised to obey the lawful orders given by his Foreman and represent thereafter his grievance, if any, to the concerned authorities. It is further claimed that the second respondent refused to heed to the said advice and told them that he would not care even if any action was taken against him and he persisted in his refusal to carry out the orders of the Foreman. THE second respondent appears to have refused to heed to the advice of even the Personnel Officer and he insisted that he should be allotted to some other work. It is claimed that when the Personnel Officer advised him to go back to his section and resume work in the Crack Detection Department and make any representation in writing regarding his grievance. THEreafter the second respondent, who was claimed to be in an agitated mood and not prepared to discuss with the Personnel Officer, went straight to the Cloak Room, changed his dress, took his cycle from the cycle stand and left the factory without the permission of any of his superiors without even going the Gate Office to record therein his reasons for refusal.

(3.) MR. S. Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted as follows :1) When past record is relied upon, due opportunity should be given to the worker and the absence of such an opportunity before relying upon the past conduct by itself vitiated the order of the appellant.The learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in Mgt. of M. F. L. v. P. O., I Addl. Labour Court, Etc., (1990-I-LLJ-298) in support of his contention.2) Since the management passed the impugned orders on the ground that all the charges have been-held proved it could not be postulated as what would have weighed in the mind of the management if only some charges have been held proved by them and consequently according to the learned counsel, the interference by the Labour Court with the quantum of punishment was justified.3) The Labour Court was very much alive to and fully aware of the relevant principles and the quantum of the punishment by the Labour Court, which was upheld by the learned single Judge, does not call for any interference in this appeal.