N GANESAPANDI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a clerk in the second respondent Bank from 9. 4. 1990. On 9. 11. 1992 he applied to the Management to promote him as Secretary when a vacancy arises in that post. According to the petitioner, his representation was not considered and another person was appointed who did not possess the requisite qualification. THErefore, he raised an industrial dispute. THE petitioner had laid his claim to be considered for promotion on the ground that he had worked in another Co-operative Society viz. , Kannirasapuram Milk Producers Co-operative society and therefore, that should be taken note of. In the document marked as ex. M2 before the Labour Court which is the application of the petitioner, Xerox copy of the certificate dated 28. 12. 1988 was enclosed. This is given under the seal of the President of Kannirasapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society one P. Subramanian. He had certified that from 1. 6. 1985 to 27. 12. 1987 the petitioner had worked as a clerk in that Society. THE certificate that ha d been enclosed in Ex. M2 is only a Xerox copy of the original certificate. THEreafter, the second respondent appears to have been asked to give an explanation as to why the petitioners claim was superceded. On enquiry, the second respondent allegedly found that the petitioner had never worked in the Kannirasapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society. THE petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Charge memo was served consisting of two charges, (1) for absenting himself from duty on 5. 1. 1993 and 5. 3. 1993 and (2) the petitioner had produced a false certificate of experience in an earlier Society to gain promotion. THE enquiry officer came to the conclusion that charge No. 1 was not proved but however held that charge No. 2 was proved. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the second respondent imposed the punishment of dismissal on 1. 11. 1993. This is the background of I. D. No. 20 of 1994 which was also dismissed and against which, the present writ petition had been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceedings are vitiated for the following reasons: THE petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. THE petitioner was not allowed to peruse the documents based on which, the findings had been given. THE enquiry report was not furnished to him before imposing the punishment. THE punishment was excessive. THE respondent Management did not establish that the certificate was false. Reliance was placed on the decision in M. Natanam v. THE Assistant Commissioner h. R. & C. E. , 1999 (3) CTC 657.