MANAGEMENT OF N P K R R CO OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the records of the first respondent in the award in I.D. No. 157 of 1992, dated 8/12/1995. The petitioner is a registered co-operative society. The second respondent was initially recruited as a trainee and by order dated 1/03/1987, he was appointed as probationer and the probation period was one year. During the period of probation, the second respondent is said to have committed a misconduct. It was alleged that on 2/12/1987, while working as a water gauge glass attender, he was on duty between 6 A.M. and 2 P.M. and at that time, he was grossly negligent and since he did not watch the water guage level in the turbine area at the close of the shift, the turbine was flooded and the factory came to a stand-still and the crushing had to be stopped and the second respondent did not inform the fact to his successor who came after him in the next shift.

(2.) A charge-memo, dated 20/12/1987, was served upon the second respondent and he offered his explanation, dated 31/12/1987. The explanation was found not satisfactory, and an enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer by observing the principles of natural justice concluded that the second respondent was guilty of the charges framed against him. The management accepted the report of the enquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice to the second respondent directing him to offer his explanation and after the explanation was offered, the second respondent was dismissed from service by order, dated 20/06/1988. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, by its order, dated 8/12/1995, passed an award granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50 per cent of back-wages and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500 which is directed to be deducted from the back-wages.

(3.) The petitioner-management has filed the present writ petition seeking for quashing the award. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court, namely, the first respondent herein ought to have noticed that the second respondent was only a probationer and he has committed serious misconduct resulting in heavy loss to the mills and ought not to have exercised the power under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act.