G RAVICHANDRAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. The appellant (hereinafter shortly referred to as the "workman") was employed as a salesman in the second respondent Management of Lakshmi Mills Limited, Coimbatore (hereinafter shortly referred to as the "management"). The workman was issued with a show cause notice dated 29.7.88 containing three charges viz., (1) that he did not work on 25.7.88 during work hours; (2) that he forcibly took away the attendance register and attempted to sign without submitting leave application; and (3) that he tried to attack the manager with scissors. The workman denied the charges. He also alleged enmity between him and the manager and consequently the victimisation. Not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer found that all the three charges were proved. The workman was issued with a second show cause notice. Though a reply was submitted by the workman, he was dismissed from service on 21.1.89. The dispute raised by the workman in I.D.No.503 of 1989 was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Coimbatore and by award dated 11.12.92, the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with backwages and other attendant benefits. The management filed the writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by order dated 2.11.2000.

(2.) According to the workman, only due to the enmity between him and the manager and to victimise him, he was issued with the charges. To support the said plea, he would contend (1) that he insisted the manager by name P.Narayanasamy to account for the shortage of 425 metres of cloth for the year 1987-88 and (2) that on 16.7.88 just two weeks prior to the issue of charge memo, the workman complained to the management against the manager, as he was carrying on chit business in the showroom premises without the permission of the management and that on coming to know of the unauthorised conduct of the chit business, he insisted repayment of three instalments paid by him to the manager. Infuriated by the above, the manager submitted a report to the management with false allegations, which resulted in the issuance of charge memo.

(3.) On the contrary, it was the case of the management that the shortage of 425 metres of cloth was in fact accounted and verified by the auditor and the allegation was, therefore, false. Secondly, the chit business run by Narayanasamy was in no way connected with the charges.