RAJULU S Vs. MGMT OF AUTHORITY PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a packer in the packing department of the first respondent biscuit factory from April 6, 1974. However, he was placed under suspension from April 26, 1981 and thereafter served with two charge memos dated April 28, 1981 and August 11, 1981 respectively. The first charge memo dated August 28, 1981 is for an alleged misconduct that the petitioner was found eating some biscuits while he was packing the biscuits and the second charge memo dated April 11, 1981 is for an alleged misconduct that he had abused his supervisor in filthy words. An enquiry was conducted on the said charges and by a report dated October 9, 1981, both the charges were held proved, finding that the petitioner was guilty of both the charges levelled against him. Hence a second show cause notice was issued to him on October 13, 1981, proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on October 19, 1981 and not satisfied with the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated Novembers, 1981. Of course, after taking into account, the past service records of the petitioner, against which, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 41 of 1992 before the second respondent, who, by award dated March 30, 1993, upheld the order of dismissal dated November 5, 1981, referred to above. Hence, the above writ petition.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decisions in:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court failed to exercise its power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to interfere with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that even if the alleged misconduct is proved, the same do not require a major punishment of dismissal from service, in as much as the charge that the petitioner was found eating a biscuit at the time of packing the biscuit and that he had abused a superior officer in filthy words themselves, would not require a punishment of dismissal. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in Virudachalam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Cuddalore reported in 1995-II-LLJ-173 (Mad).