CORK INDUSTRIES Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the First Additional Labour Court, madras, the first respondent herein, in I. D. No. 72 of 1981 and published in the Tamil Nadu gazette dated September 27, 1984. The second respondent is impleaded as a representative of the workers, Cork Industries Employees Union, alandhur, Madras, representing about 25 workmen involved in the instant case.

(2.) THE petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against 5 among the 25 workmen and dismissed them from service. The petitioner, without holding any enquiry, against the rest of the workers, about 20, dismissed them from service.

(3.) THE petitioner Management issued a charge memo to one Kothandam and Rajendran stating that they were asked to accumulate the corks produced in each set of machines in separate bags and that they disobeyed the instructions and said that separate bag for each set will not be allowed and also argued using abusive language and further they went out of the plant without permission. The said two workmen submitted their explanation denying the charges. The Enquiring Authority after holding the necessary enquiry held that the charge against those workmen was proved and that the petitioner, concurring with the findings of the Enquiring Authority, by order dated May 16, 1980 dismissed them from service. These workmen are classified as Category 'a' for convenient narration of facts. In so far as the three workmen viz. Pachiappan, Ellappan and Ganesan are concerned, the petitioner Management issued a charge memo stating that when the Engineers of the petitioner firm were talking about the generator, Pachiappan asked the Engineer, Mr. Sargunan about what they were talking, to which he replied that it was none of his business and asked to go and attend to his work and immediately the said Pachiappan started shouting, using abusive and filthy language and thereafter the said pachiappan along with Ganesan and Ellappan, came running in a furious manner and was about to beat both the Engineers, that but for the interference of a group of workers, the Engineer would have been assaulted. The petitioner called upon them to submit their explanation. The said three workmen submitted their explanations denying the charges. The Enquiring Authority held enquiry in which the Chief Engineer mr. Shah was examined at the instance of the petitioner as M. W. 2, tendered evidence in english and consequently the workmen opposed the recording of evidence in English and thereafter walked out. However, the Enquiring authority continued the enquiry and ultimately found that the charge framed against them was proved. The petitioner, concurring with the said finding, by order dated May 16, 1980 dismissed the said workmen from service. These workmen are classified as Category 'b'.