MANAGEMENT OF ADDISON & COMPANY AND ORS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT; V ILAMBHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two writ petitions filed challenging the correctness of the impugned award of the learned III Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 16.04.2009 made in I.D.No.673/2003.

(2.) The first Writ Petition No.18712/2009 was filed by the management of Addison and Company challenging the correctness of the award directing the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent Manimaran without backwages, but continuity of service. The second Writ Petition No.985/2010 has been filed by the worker Mr.V.Ilambharathi challenging the denial of backwages alone. With the consent of both parties, these two writ petitions are taken up for common disposal.

(3.) Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management assailing the impugned award passed by the Labour Court would submit that since there was a backlog of production for the month of October 2000, the petitioner management proposed to work on 29.10.2000 to deliver the products in time. As a result, a notice was put on 27.10.2000 furnishing the list of employes to report for duty on the said date. It was also mentioned in the said notice that workers will be given compensatory off on 01.11.2010 in lieu of working on Sunday. Further, the petitioner management also explained the workers the pressing reasons and the need to work on 29.10.2000. But the second respondent along with two other co-workers, namely Mr.Xavier and Mr.Sugumaran, organised a gate meeting on 28.10.2000 opposing the said notice dated 27.10.2000 in front of the factory premises and distributed notice instigating other employees to disobey the advice given by the management to work on 29.10.2000. Subsequently, the second respondent along with two others came to the factory premises at 5.30 a.m and caused other employees not to enter the company premises, as a result, many of them did not turn up. Since the conduct shown by the second respondent and two others amounted to misconduct, the second respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 30.10.2000 and a Charge Memo dated 04.11.2011 was issued to him calling upon him to submit his explanation.