S DAMODARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the Award, dated 22.9.1995, made in I.D.No.458 of 1993, by the first respondent Labour Court and to direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he joined the services of the second respondent as Machine Operator in the year 1983 and the second respondent issued a charge memo, containing two charges, dated 9.9.1992, to him alleging that on 8.9.1992 at 9.50 p.m., the petitioner while on duty came to the Shift Supervisor and abused him in a filthy language and caught hold of his shirt collar and pushed him on a nearby wall and his behaviour was misconduct under Clause 17(k) of the Standing Order. The petitioner denied the charges in his reply, dated 16.9.1992 and not satisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and examined himself as a witness on his side. The enquiry officer found the charges proved and accepting the report, the second respondent issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation as to the proposed penalty and the explanation was submitted. The second respondent imposed the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner and the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent in I.D.No.458 of 1993. The second respondent marked 12 documents on its side by consent and no oral evidence was adduced by the parties. The labour court held the first charge under clause 17(k) of the standing order against the petitioner proved and the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the charge proved and passed the award dismissing the claim. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) THE decision in Madras Fertilizers case will have no application to the present case since that was a case in which the past record of service of the employee has itself weighed with the management on the question of imposition of extreme penalty and formed basis thereof unlike the present case. THE manner of consideration of the past record in this case is only with a view to find out whether there was any mitigating or extenuating circumstance and the gravity of the misconduct formed the basis for passing the order of dismissal. THE contention of the petitioner that the dismissal order is vitiated is misconceived and liable to be rejected. THE finding of the Labour Court is based on materials on record before it and it does not call for any interference.