CETARPILLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THIRUVELLORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 408 of 1996 is preferred against the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 3817 of 1986, dated February 15, 1996. Writ Appeal No. 556 of 1996 is directed against the judgment rendered in W. P.No. 3812 of 1986, dated February 15, 1996. The points that arise in both the appeals are common.

(2.) In our view, it will be sufficient to notice the facts in W.A. No. 408 of .1996 as facts and points that arise in both the appeals are common. The parties are also common except the second respondent in each of the appeals. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, W.P.No.3817 of 1986 by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant company, namely, Management of Hindustan Motors, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-company), are as under: The writ petition has been filed against the award passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No.501 of 1983 holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and directing reinstatement of the second respondent with back-wages and other attendant benefits on the ground that the domestic enquiry conducted against the second respondent was not fair and proper. The second respondent was working as an electrician in the appellant-company at Thiruvellore wherein the appellant is manufacturing Heavy Earthmoving Equipment. The second respondent was transferred to Ramgargh in the State of Bihar along with three others. The case of the appellant is that they were sent to Ramgargh after explaining to them the purpose for which they were sent as well as the amounts they would be paid at Ramgargh. The second respondent along with others left Chennai on November 20, 1981 and the purpose for which the second respondent was sent to Ramgargh was for assembly and commissioning of 33-11G units. The case of the appellant is that even though the second respondent and others reached Ramgargh on November 22, 1981, they did not do any work. According to the appellant, it is the responsibility of the officer-in-charge of the project to take care of the welfare of the second respondent and others and the second respondent was paid the usual batta with which the second respondent could comfortably live and the amount was paid as per the company rules. It is stated that the second respondent and others were provided with free accommodation as a special case. The case of the appellant is that without any reason whatsoever the second respondent left the place of work at Ramgargh on November 28, 1981 and between November 23, 1981 and November 28, 1981 the second respondent and others did not do any work. According to the appellant, the attitude of the second respondent in refusing to do any work without any justifiable reason after having, gone to Ramgargh would amount to gross misconduct which affected the work for which the second respondent was sent by the appellant- company. It is stated that the second respondent left Ramgargh on November 28, 1981 and reported for duty at Thiruvellore on December 3, 1981.

(3.) The appellant-company issued a chargesheet, dated December 3, 1981, the second respondent for which he gave an explanation, dated December 5, 1981. The appellant-company was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the second respondent and an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry took place between December 19, 1981 and March 25, 1982. According to the appellant, the second respondent participated in the enquiry and the principles of natural justice were complied with and the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, W.P.No. 3817 of 1986 that the enquiry commenced on December 19, 1981 and adjourned to December 21, 1981 as the management's representative was ill and on December 21, 1981 the enquiry was taken up and after recording of evidence it was adjourned to December 30, 1981 on which date also the enquiry progressed and then, the enquiry was adjourned to January 11, 1982 and on January 11, 1982, as the management witness, by name Sri R. Vijayaraghavan was held up with urgent matters at Ramgargh, the enquiry was adjourned to March 5, 1982. It is , also stated that on March 5, 1982, the enquiry was taken up and after recording of evidence it was adjourned to March 9, 1982 on which date also the enquiry progressed and on March 9, 1982 the enquiry was adjourned to March 15, 1982 and then to March 20, 1982 at the request of the second respondent to examine his witnesses. On March 20, 1982 the second respondent sought for time and the enquiry was adjourned to March 25, 1982. According to the appellant, the adjournments were given to enable the second respondent to produce his witnesses. It is stated that on March 25, 1982 the second respondent did not bring his additional witnesses and the enquiry officer refused to adjourn the matter any further. The second respondent gave a statement of his defence. It is also stated that the second respondent has made a statement to the effect that he was satisfied with the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report on March 31, 1982 and recorded a finding in his report that the charges levelled against the second respondent have been proved. The appellant- company by order dated April 24, 1982, accepted the report of the enquiry officer and taking into account the past record of the second respondent passed an order dismissing the second respondent from service. The second respondent filed a petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Officer and since the conciliation failed, the Government made a reference to the Labour Court on the following question: