BRAKES INDIA LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - Management has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of the 1st respondent passed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 2-8-1991, refusing to grant approval of the order of dismissal passed against the 2nd respondent.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent, who was an employees of the petitioner, was charge-sheeted by a charge memo dated 29-6-1990, charging the 2nd respondent that while he was on duly on 28-6-1990, he had assaulted one Padmanabhan, canteen worker, near the store-entrance, adjacent to the cook's room after altercation, abused the said Padmanabhan in vulgar language and threw a eversilver tumbler on his face and caused a bleeding injury on the right forehead just above the right eye. M/s Ramamurthy and Santhanam, the co-workers who were present at the scene of occurrence to the said injured Padmanabhan for first-aid and thereafter appears that he (Padmanabhan) was taken to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital in an ambulance. The 2nd respondent submitted an explanation on 2-7-1990 denying the charges and thereupon an enquiry was conducted on 10-7-1990 and in the said domestic enquiry though one of the eye witness to the occurrence Mr. Ramamurthy was examined, the other witness Santhanam could not be examined, as he was threatened by the 2nd respondent. The Enquiry Officer, on an assessment of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, found the 2nd respondent guilty of the charges. Consequently, as per the Company's Standing Order 15 (xi), (xii) and (xiii), the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 20-2-1991. Since the conciliation proceedings were pending before the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent, for the grant of approval of the order of dismissal passed against the 2nd respondent under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. The 1st respondent after going through the entire records and the report of the enquiry officer, refused to grant approval, holding that the evidence recorded in the course of the enquiry did not warrant for removal of the 2nd respondent and no prima facie case had been made not to pass an order of dismissal against the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner Management has fled this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the order of the 1st respondent is erroneous and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions contained under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act; that if the evidence adduced by the petitioner - Management is not enough the grant approval, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, that the provisions contained under Section 11-A of the Act is not applicable to the proceedings under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act; that the 1st respondent cannot go into the controversy as to the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence recorded in the course of the enquiry, and therefore the order of the 1st respondent has to be quashed.