MANAGEMENT OF AUROFOOD PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. S RAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management of Aurofood Private Limited, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9-2-2001, made in Writ Petition No. 69 of 1994, has filed the above Writ Appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are required for the disposal of this Appeal alone are stated hereunder: first respondent herein was employed as a packer in the packing department of appellant biscuit factory from 6-4-1974. While so, in 1981 he was served with two charge memos. The first charge memo dated 28-4-1981 relates to misconduct that he was found eating biscuits while he was packing the biscuits and the second charge memo dated 11-8-1981 is that he had abused his supervisor in filthy language. It is not in dispute that an enquiry was conducted on the said charges and ultimately he was found guilty of both the charges. Thereafter, the management issued a show cause notice on 13-10-1981 proposing to dismiss him from service to which he submitted his explanation on 19-10-1981. The management not satisfied with his explanation dismissed him from service by order dated 5-11-1981. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 41/92 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore/2ndrespondent herein. By award dated 30-3-1993, the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal dated 5-11-1981 and confirmed the order of dismissal. Questioning the same, the workman preferred Writ Petition No. 69/94 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, after finding that though the management took the records of past service into account for the purpose of imposing the punishment of dismissal, no opportunity was given to him, set aside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back wages except for the period of delay of 3 years with continuity of service etc. Questioning the same, the management has filed the present appeal.

(3.) HEARD Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant-management; and Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for first respondent-workman.