M NEELAKANDAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-Workman has come forward to challenge the Award passed by the First Respondent-Labour Court (II Additional District Judge), Pondicherry in I.D. No. 25 of 2002, dated 21.2.2007. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner and declined to grant any relief to him.

(2.) The Writ Petition was admitted on 18.4.2007. On notice from this Court, the Second Respondent-Management has filed Counter Affidavit dated 19.2.2012. Since the Petitioner has not produced all the Documents made available before the Labour Court, this Court directed the Registry to summon the records from the Labour Court for perusal by this Court. Accordingly, the records have been summoned and the same had been perused by this Court.

(3.) It is seen from the records that the Petitioner joined the services of the Second Respondent on 19.3.1991 as a Grade-III Operator. The Petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo-cum-suspension order dated 26.4.2001, in which it is stated that the Petitioner, while in the employment of the Company, along with two other persons, namely N. Kumanan and R. Ramalingam, promoted a Company, named M/s. N.K.R. Chemicals Private Limited at Kalitheerthakuppam Village, Madagadipet Post, Mannipet Commune, Pondicherry and functioned in the capacity as a Director of the said Company along with the said two persons; the Company also secured certified copies of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association; the Petitioner was instrumental in registering the said Company; he also applied for a loan from the Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short, 'PIPDIC'), vide Application dated 19.3.1997; the further allegation was that the signature of Mr. M. Mohan, who was the then Head of Personnel Department, was forged to show that he was actually relieved from the services of the Company and the same was a requirement for submitting the Loan Application; he has prepared the forged relieving order with a malicious intention to defraud and avail the loan from the PIPDIC; the Petitioner was also accused of cheating the Company and working against the interests of the Company and engaged in a vocation outside that of the Company without the written permission of the Company.