P. BRUCE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition to challenge the order made in Na.Ka.No.L/2044/2010 dated 28.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order passed by the first respondent vide Letter No.L2/11929/10, dated 21.03.2011 to the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Rubber Tapper at the respondent's corporation, he was issued with a show-cause notice on 24.09.2010 by the second respondent and another show-cause notice on 29.09.2010, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to certain allegations made thereunder. The petitioner had submitted his explanations dated 01.10.2010 and 11.10.2010 respectively. As the petitioner's explanation was not considered and an enquiry officer appointed also conducted an enquiry and consequently an order of termination was passed by the second respondent on 29.11.2010. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 18.12.2010. While the petitioner was awaiting the order in the appeal, he was issued with a communication by the second respondent dated 28.03.2011, stating that the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 21.03.2011 was pleased to provide job to the petitioner at Kallar Sub-Division of Kothaiyar Division, provided the petitioner enter into a settlement as per Section 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and on certain other conditions. It is the said order of the second respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) IT is stated in the counter affidavit that the first respondent passed an order on appeal by taking lenient view subject to certain conditions that the petitioner is to be re-instated into service without any wages, allowances and gratuity for the non-employment period and he has to be posted as a Tapper in Kallar Unit of Kothiyar Division and he was asked to enter into settlement with the second respondent under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Based on the said order passed by the first respondent, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent and therefore, there is nothing wrong in passing the present order by the second respondent as the same was not passed by him on his own but only based on the order passed by the first respondent.