M.SELVARAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5107 and 8207 of 2004 submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai, holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the second respondent management was fair and proper, cannot be held to be in order, since the petitioners were not issued with a copy of the enquiry report to enable them to submit their further representation indicating the infirmities in the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Although the punishment of dismissal said to have been imposed after taking into account the past records, but, without disclosing the past records and without giving any opportunity whatsoever, the second respondent management dismissed the petitioners from service, which is untenable and unlawful, therefore, from all fronts, the petitioners have been put in piquant situation.

(3.) It is further contended that the petitioners, while working as Mechanic Operator, have involved in forming the trade union viz. Rane (Madras) Employees Union. In view of that, the second respondent was inimically disposed towards the union and adopted unfair labour practice and victimisation in respect of all such employees, who took part in the formation of the Union. Moreover, when the management has been seeking higher output and when the same was utterly impossible, the second respondent management has taken disciplinary action on the ground of go-slow. But, the real motive and intention of the management was to eliminate the forerunners of the union and instil fear among other employees, so that it can dictate the terms among the employees. But, the learned labour Court has completely lost sight of this ground reality, although it was brought to its notice. It is further submitted that from the enquiry report, it is evident that the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioners guilty of a charge, which was not even levelled against them and in fact, the issues so framed are not the subject matter of the charge. Finally, the petitioners have been found guilty of charges, which were not even levelled against them. The above said legal issues have been completely overlooked by the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned award, particularly, when the impugned punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the second respondent, the learned Labour Court should have seen that whether the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate right.