S. MAYILERINATHAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by the first respondent. The second respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner initially appointed Thiru.Gunasekaran, office bearer of State Bank India Ambedkar Trade Union, as his defence representative. Since the representative pleaded his inability to appear on account of personal reasons, the petitioner engaged the service of Thiru.Raviselvam. Thereafter, the petitioner appointed Thiru.M.V. Thangasamy, as his defence representative. However the said appointment was not approved by the first respondent. The order declining to accept the appointment of Thiru.M.V. Thangasamy, as his defence representative, is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 10.04.2002. As per the said agreement, it is open to the employee to take the assistance of a member of his registered trade union.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the earlier order dated 16.07.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.7999 of 2005 submitted that this Court has already considered the very same agreement and the stand taken by the worker that he is entitled to avail the assistance of a member of the trade union as his defence representative.