MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/management has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchy, in I.D.No.93/96 dated 8.12.1999.

(2.) The petitioner contends that they are carrying different lines of business, one of which relates to body building for buses, vans and trucks. They have a unit at Viralimalai and during the relevant period about 300 workmen were working. The unit has separate certified Standing Orders. The unit was also paying to all its workmen reasonable wages and providing excellent service from the year 1981. The majority of the workers are members of T.V.S. Workers' Union affiliated to I.N.T.U.C. which has been recognised by the Management. A settlement was also executed which was remaining in operation and it was agreed that the workmen shall not make any demand or raise any dispute which would involve additional financial commitment to the Company.

(3.) Some of the workmen relating to the Viralimalai Unit were not happy with the settlement and these dissident workmen joined the Sundaram Industries Employees' Union and they had started precipitating trivial issues only for the purpose of confrontation with the management. They have seized every opportunity to defy the authority of the superiors and indulged in indiscipline and cause disruption to normal working of the establishment. It is further stated that on 20.7.1994, the second respondent reported for duty in the night shift and he was assigned with the welding work in the roof of a bus body. At about 9.00 p.m. the Supervisor saw him not working and remaining idle. When the Supervisor asked him to do the work, the second respondent refused and again at 10.40 pm. He was asked by the Supervisor to do his work. But the second respondent not only persisted in his refusal, but also abused the Supervisor in filthy language, threatened him and even tried to assault him. On 21.7.1994 the employee was suspended pending enquiry and subsequently a charge memo was issued calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. As his explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was held and the second respondent also participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses who were examined in support of the charges. The employee did not examine any of the workmen. On 15.1.1995 the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charges were proved. A copy of the findings were furnished to the employee for his comments and after considering his representation an order dated 21.3.1995 was passed against the employee dismissing him from service. At the time of dismissal, the employee was drawing a wage of Rs.1850/- per month.