MANAGEMENT OF GREAVES COTTON LTD Vs. G SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the award of the second respondent passed in I.D.No.131 of 2004 dated 03.02.2006.

(2.) THE petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of Light Diesel Engines in its factory at Sipcot Industrial Estate, Ranipet. The petitioner informs that the first respondent was engaged as an operator in the Engine Assembly which comprises of 12 stages. At each of such stages, an operator fixes the components in the engine resulting in bringing out an assembled engine at the end of the assembly line. The petitioner informs as follows: The conveyor stops for preset intervals and moves from one stage to another. The conveyor is preset to stop for 3= minutes at each stage for fixing of components. There are 6 stop switches at critical stages of the conveyor, which when switched on stops the conveyor for more than the preset time. The conveyor's motion is controlled by motors on two ends. The groove wheels of the conveyor on either side are moved by the motors. Each motor is covered by metal mesh on the sides with a hole near the axle of the motor for cleaning. The distance between the motor and the first stage of operation is about 1= ft. The conveyor runs at a height of about 3= ft. from the ground level and is about 1= ft. in breadth. Below the conveyor there is a metal bed on which, components which slip from the hands of the operators would fall. The conveyor rests on metal girders and cross bars on both sides. Nothing of the size of a torque meter can travel on the bottom layer of the conveyor.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the first respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer, Vellore. On the Labour Officer reporting failure of conciliation, the first respondent filed a petition before the second respondent under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging his non-employment. The case was numbered as I.D.No.131 of 2004. The first respondent contended that the damage caused to the torque meter was not due to his fault and negligence and he was not responsible for the same. Wrong doing on his part had been assumed since the incident occurred at the first stage where he was stationed. On completion of proceedings before him, the second respondent held that the charges against the first respondent were not proved and arrived at a conclusion that the termination order passed against the first respondent by the petitioner based upon the domestic enquiry was not correct. On the materials placed before him, the second respondent held that the first respondent was not responsible for the occurrence that had happened on 22.11.2002 and that the conclusion reached on the basis of domestic enquiry was not acceptable. The second respondent, however, had found that the incident could have been avoided if the first respondent had acted carefully as the accident happened at the first stage where the first respondent was working on the date of incident. The second respondent, therefore, directed the reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service with attendant benefits, but with 50% back wages.