BAVANI V Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as an assistant in the office of the second respondent. According to her she had put in more than 16 years of unblemished service. She was issued with the chargesheet on December 1, 1990 and was also suspended on that date. The main charge against the petitioner is that on November 30, 1990 at about 10. 00 A. M. , Sri Ramasamy, her superior is stated to have asked her about some of the pending work and the petitioner was alleged to have used abusive language and also others by using the following words which are according to the respondents abusive and unparliamentary words amounting to serious misconduct: "vernacular matter omitted. "

(2.) AFTER the explanation submitted by the petitioner and due enquiry, the enquiry officer found her guilty and on April 1, 1991, a second show-cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied on April 8, 1991. She was dismissed from service on April 16, 1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Pondicherry and the Labour Court after considering the pleadings and evidence by both the sides, held that the enquiry had been properly conducted and there was evidence to show that the petitioner had abused her superior and the staff of the management by using unparliamentary and abusive words and hence the charge against her was clearly established. On the quantum of punishment also, the Labour Court held that the management had taken into consideration the past records and therefore it cannot be said that the punishment was severe. With the result, the industrial dispute was rejected and hence the above writ petition.

(3.) SRI N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire sequence of facts clearly establish that the management was pursuing unfair attitude against the petitioner to penalize her for some reason or other. The petitioner was a sincere worker as admitted by the management itself in their evidence and on that particular date of incident relating to the charge, there was evidence of the petitioner having been subjected to extreme pressure of work. Apart from the fact that she denied using any abusive expression, learned counsel contends that even assuming that the charge had been made out, the punishment of dismissal from service was not called for having regard to the series of judgments dealing with similar conduct by the workers. It is further submitted that the reference to the alleged past record and the conduct of the petitioner, a perusal of the same would show that there was absolutely no warrant to support the dismissal of the petitioner from service. Moreover the Labour Court did not independently consider the past conduct of the petitioner and therefore there was no proper consideration of the requirements under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the charges during the enquiry, M. W. 1 Ramasamy had admitted in the cross-examination that the petitioner was normally discharging her duties and whatever work which was entrusted by him was carried out by her and that the Chief Accountant was the superior of the petitioner. He has also admitted that previous to the incident, there was no such complaint against the petitioner. As regards the past conduct, the five incidents of the past conduct were minor and trivial incidents rising out of leave or late-coming and in most of the incidents, her explanations had been accepted and she has not been awarded any punishment.