R. KALIANNAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction directing the second respondent to revoke the dismissal order stating that the same is in violation of the standing order and it amounts to victimisation in dismissing him from service without conducting any enquiry.

(2.) MR .Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the General Secretary of the Employees Union, which represents majority of members employed in the second respondent establishment at Hosur. The union in which the petitioner is the General Secretary submitted a charter of demands and a dispute was raised under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer, Krishnagiri and later, transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. The Conciliation efforts failed and the Labour Officer sent his failure report and the dispute has been referred to the first respondent for verification. During pendency of the the dispute, the management started negotiating with the rival union which does not have good number of workers and also entered into Section 12(3) settlement with that union. Therefore, the union in which the petitioner is the General Secretary filed a Writ Petition and obtained an order of injunction and that was challenged in Writ Appeal by the management wherein the order was modified to the effect that the management could enter into Section 18(1) settlement with the rival labour union. Thereafter, the petitioner's union gave a petition to the Government to direct the management to abolish the contract labourer by absorbing them as permanent workers and the committee constituted by the first respondent deputed the Labour Officer to conduct an inspection and the petitioner and the other office bearers assisted the Labour Officer during inspection and enraged by that, the second respondent management started victimising the union activities and office bearers. The treasurer, Mr.Muthuraj, was issued show cause notice and two other workers were suspended. The petitioner was transferred to Jabalpur and the Joint Secretary, Srinivasan, was transferred to Maraimalai Nagar. While so, the second respondent without any reason and with an intention of recking vengeance on the petitioner and other office bearers dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 9.5.2014 without conducting any enquiry and the action of the second respondent is also against the provisions of the standing orders. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the management to revoke the dismissal order and reinstate the petitioner in employment.

(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ravindran, that as per the certified standing orders, a workman on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded in the enquiry held for the purpose be suspended for a period not exceeding 30 days or dismissed but such workman shall not be entitled to any notice or any compensation in lieu of such notice. He therefore submitted that failure to conduct enquiry and prove the charges against the petitioner amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that as per Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the worker is an utter disregard to the principles of natural justice by not conducting domestic enquriy or the undue haste amounts to unfair labour practice and therefore, on that ground also, the dismissal order is liable to be set aside. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention: -