C MUTHUMANICKAM Vs. MANAGEMENT OF KONGARAR SPINNERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an erst while employee of the first respondent/Spinning Mills. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No.58 of 1992, he seeks for quashing the said award dated 9.2.1995 insofar as it declines to grant all the normal relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he joined the service of the Mill on 1.8.1980 in the Winding Department and he was last employed as a spinner. At the time of his dismissal from service, he was drawing a salary of Rs.1,785/- per month. He was dismissed from service on the basis of an alleged incident on 3.4.1991. He was attending to the third shift and when he came to the Mill, he felt uneasy and experienced stomach pain and hence, he asked his maistry Ranganathan for leave and the maistry asked him to inform to the time office. However, he was marked as absent in the time office register. On the next day when he was reported for working and he was allowed to work as usual. Three days later, he was issued with a suspension order stating that when he came to work on 3.4.1991, he had been in a drunken state and that he had behaved disrespectfully towards his superiors and with the security guard. The petitioner contends that though he was alleged to have been found in a drunken state, he was not sent for any medical examination. On 10.4.1991, a show cause notice was issued for the alleged drunkenness while on duty and disrespectful behaviour and for abusing the security guard. The petitioner gave an explanation on 18.4.1991 denying the charges. A domestic enquiry was conducted and while the management had examined six witnesses, the petitioner had examined himself. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. On 13.5.1991, the second show cause notice was issued. The petitioner contends that a copy of the report of the enquiry officer was not enclosed. He gave his reply to the enquiry officer's report. However, without furnishing a copy of the report, he was dismissed from service on 27.5.1991. The petitioner thereupon raised an industrial dispute and the Labour court passed an award on 9.2.1995 holding that the charges have been established and ordered compensation of Rs.30,000/-, after declining to grant normal relief of reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits. Hence the above Writ Petition.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent/management, it is stated that on 3.4.1991, the petitioner was expected to attend the third shift commencing at 12.00 mid night. He entered the Mill in an intoxicated condition and the security personnel immediately informed the time office about the condition of the petitioner. By then, the petitioner has entered the Department where the departmental maistry also found him in an intoxicated state. He then came to the time office and when the shift supervisor and ASM asked the petitioner to leave the premises, the employee had abused of them and stated that he would come to work in any manner he liked and that the cannot be questioned about it. While coming out of the Mill, he also threatened the security guard. Therefore, the management felt that the conduct on the part of the worker constituted a grave misconduct and that such a conduct cannot be permitted in the establishment as it would lead to very serious consequences of disrupting discipline and safety to the life and property. Thereafter, he did not turn up for work on 4th and 5th April 1991. When he came to work on 6.4.1991, he was served with an order of suspension pending further proceedings. In the enquiry, seven witnesses were examined and the petitioner was also allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the management. On a properly conducted enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and the explanation submitted by him for the second show cause notice was also found unsatisfactory. With the result, the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service. There was no scope for interference with the award of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.