VEERAMANI Vs. MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION KUMBAKONAM THANJAVUR DISTRICT , PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was working as a driver in the first respondent Transport Corporation which is wholly owned by the State Government. The Petitioner claims that he has been working in the Corporation from 01.11.1989 till he was dismissed from service on 22.06.1999. It is claimed by the first Respondent that on 09.06.1997, the Petitioner was entering the Mayiladuthurai (Mofusil) depot in a drunken mood, misbehaved with the Town Branch Manager and Watchman and after assaulted the watchman, smashed the headlight of a Chennai going bus.

(2.) Based on the said incident, a charge memo dated 22.07.1997 was served on him, but he did not submit any explanation. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted and one retired Judicial officer was appointed as an enquiry officer. After notice, the enquiry was held. The workman was allowed to have a defence representative and the management witnesses were cross examined. The Petitioner had also examined himself as a defence witness. The Enquiry Officer by his finding dated 29.11.1997, found that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. On the basis of the proved minutes, the management accepting the report, gave a show cause notice to the Petitioner and after taking note of his explanation and the past records, he was dismsised from service vide order dated 07.04.1998. The said order, sent to the Petitioner, came back as 'unserved'. The workman namely, the Petitioner raised a Industrial Dispute against his non-employment and since compromise was not forth coming, failure report dated 05.11.2004 was filed by the Conciliation officer.

(3.) On the strength of the failure report, the Petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court at Cuddalore. The said dispute was taken on file in I.D. No. 4 of 2005 and notice was issued to the Respondent-management. The first Respondent filed a written statement of defence dated 17.01.2006. In the defence statement, it was stated that enquiry held against the Petitioner was fair and proper and the past conduct of the Petitioner was also taken at all, which is not satisfactory and though the dismissl order was passed in the year 1998, he chose to raise a dispute after six or seven years and he is also guilty of laches. In the present case, instead of directing the management to file an enquiry proceedings as per the written statement filed by the first Respondent, the Petitioner got into the box as PW1 and filed a proof affidavit. Learned Counsel for the first Respondent Transport Corporation elicited an answer in the cross-examination that the signature found in the Vakalath was not that of the Petitioner and he has not authorised to raise an Industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, curiously taking note of those facts, held that the dispute was not properly raised by the worker and on the basis of his admission in the cross-examination, the Industrial Dispute was not maintainable.