MANAGEMENT OF DEVALA TEA DIVISION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/labour Court, Coimbatore in I. D. Nos. 368 to 370 of 1994 and quash the award dated 25. 9. 1996.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondents 2 to 4 were the daily workers in Range III of Devala Tea Division of the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, Gudalur Taluk; that on 7. 11. 1992, when the Field Conductor allotted them the work, they refused to go for work and when questioned by him, they assaulted him; that based on the said incident, a police complaint was lodged in the Devala police station in Cr. No. 578/1992 and the counter complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 herein was registered as Cr. No. 617/1992; that thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted by the petitioner and having found them guilty, a punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on respondents 2 to 4; Aggrieved, they have filed I. D. Nos. 368 to 370/1994 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, Coimbatore has ordered reinstatement of Respondents 2 to 4 with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. Aggrieved, the Management has come forward with this Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Tea Plantation Corporation Limited; that the incident took place on 7. 11. 92; that the respondents 2 to 4 did not work and when they were asked to work; that they refused and assaulted the Field Conductor; that a complaint was given to the police, registered in C. C. No. 578/92 and the management was intimated; that show cause notices were issued to respondents 2 to 4; that enquiry was sought to be adjourned on ground that they have filed the Writ Petition; that enquiry was not adjourned and the witnesses were examined; that since the enquiry was conducted by the Field Officer, the respondents 2 to 4 wanted change of enquiry officer; that their request was acceded to; that the manager was appointed as the enquiry officer; enquiry was conducted; that after the change of enquiry officer, the enquiry officer while travelling between Coimbatore and Coonoor, the enquiry papers were lost in the bus; that the enquiry officer gave a report to the police; that, fresh enquiry was ordered and the respondents refused to participate in the enquiry and the enquiry was held exparte; that the witnesses were examined; after the enquiry, the respondents 2 to 4 were given the order of dismissal due to misconduct; that they raised a dispute challenging their dismissal before the Labour Court; that the preliminary issue is as to whether the enquiry was held properly or not; that by preliminary order dated 3. 7. 96 the Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper; that the Labour Court held that the workmen have to be acquitted for the benefit of doubt.