K. PARASURAMAN Vs. THE MANAGEMENT, SOUTHERN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the Award of the labour court in I.D.No.79 of 1996, dated 21.04.2003, confirming the order of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent.

(2.) The Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner joined as a Plant operator Trainee in the year 1982 and was later absorbed as Technician (Operation) in the year 1983. He was later promoted as Senior Technician and continued as such till his dismissal, on 29.11.1995. A strike was called for by the technicians protesting the suspension of one Sundaragavan, on 12.04.1995. The petitioner, who came to attend his night duty, also participated in the strike. Subsequently, the dispute was solved between the management and the union. However, the first respondent took disciplinary action against the president, vice-president, treasurer of the union and also charge sheeted 26 workers and served discharge memo on ten probationers. The charge against the petitioner was that he forced the employees to participate in the stay-in-strike. The petitioner opposed the charges and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an I.D before the second respondent, which was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned award, contended that the award of punishment of dismissal from service is arbitrary and amounts to discrimination and the Labour Court failed to see that based on unreliable management witnesses, the petitioner was found guilty, even though others were exonerated. The learned counsel also contended that none of the witnesses have deposed that the petitioner threatened them to participate in the strike and the Labour Court also failed to consider that since the employees were assembled in a open space in the strike, they were always free to leave. The learned counsel further contended that the management witnesses, who were probated, were threatened to depose against the petitioner and later exonerated of the charges and confirmed. The learned counsel further contended that most of the persons charged with the offences including some of the witness were exonerated of the same charges and therefore the punishment is discriminatory and vindication of active participation in Union Actitivies. The learned counsel, placing reliance upon the Judgments in Management of Indian Oil Corporation Vs.Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court and others, 1993 1 LLJ 1148 and in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs.Girish Chandra Sarma, 2007 7 SCC 206, sought for setting aside of the Award and reinstatement with back wages and other benefits.