TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL, MADRAS Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND CENTRAL ORGANISATION OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.237 of 1988 and quash its award dated 22.3.1993.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The members of the second respondent Union went on strike in the year 1972 -73 and they resorted to frequent agitations like taking mass casual leave, pen down strike, gherao the officers and mass squatting etc. Such activities were invariably done in the working hours. The Unions were informed by the Board that that the authority will follow the principle of "no work no pay" for all kinds of unauthorised absence resorted to by the workmen. Instructions were issued to all the officers concerned about this. In the month of September 1984, employees who happened to be the members of the 2nd respondent Union working in various Circles all over Tamil Nadu simultaneously applied for mass casual leave on 19.9.1984 on the ground that they want to participate in an Hunger Fast as per the decisions of All India Electricity Federation. That was rejected as it was not a legal one. Leave was refused for all 44 employees even on 18.9.1984. The workmen concerned were informed about the refusal of the leave applied for by them. In spite of that all the 44 employees absented themselves from duty on 19.9. 1984. Therefore, disciplinary action in accordance with the Rules was initiated against the erred employees. After enquiry, the charges framed were found to be true and punishments were imposed ranging from censure i.e. Stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with or without cumulative effect, taking into consideration the hardship experienced in various places. The punishment so imposed were challenged before the Labour Court by the Union. The Labour Court passed an award holding that the action of the petitioner imposing different punishments to different individuals was not justified. Challenging the award of the Labour Court, this writ petition has been filed .

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed.