AMALGAMATIONS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the management of Amalgamations REPCO Ltd. for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in I. D. No. 427 of 1982 dated 16. 4. 1996.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioner company is having a factory at Madhavaram, which is used for manufacturing clutch plates and clutch assemblies required for the automobile industry. THE petitioner is governed by the Model Standing orders prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Standing Orders rules. THE second respondent, hereinafter called "the workman", was employed as a machine operator. THE second respondent was elected as a Group Leader of the recognized union during the year 1974-75. According to the case of the management, the second respondent became indifferent to his work. During the year 1977, several memos were issued to him alleging that he was guilty of go-slow tactic. In respect of charge dated 17. 8. 1977, a domestic enquiry was held and he was found guilty of adopting "go-slow". Similarly he was charged with misconduct of riotous and disorderly behaviour and he was found guilty in the domestic enquiry. It was proposed to dismiss him from service on account of these two enquiries. However, in deference to the representation of the recognised union, no punishment was imposed. During the year 1979, the workman continued in such indifferent manner and persistently refused to carry out the assigned work, which resulted in loss of wages on the principle of "no work-no pay". On 10. 7. 1999, a charge was issued to the workman for his insolent behaviour towards Sales Executive. He was found guilty of such charge and he was dismissed by order dated 9. 8. 1979. On the representation of the recognised union, the order of dismissal was rescinded on 5. 9. 1979 and he was permitted to join duty. After resuming duty in December, 1979, the workman again indulged in go-slow. During December, 1979 to December, 1981, numerous memos were issued. On 13. 1. 1982, a charge-sheet was issued for of the workman to produce even a single component on 12. 1. 1982. THE workman was again dismissed by order dated 4. 2. 1982. THE workman made representation to revise the order. Ultimately, the president of the Union pleaded with the Management to reconsider the order and gave an assurance that he would advise the workman to mend himself. Based on the representation and the assurance of the President of the Union, the management permitted the workman to join duty with effect from 3. 3. 1982, subject to the condition that he would carry out the normal duties arising out of his employment as an operator on day to-day basis and he would abide by the provisions of the Standing Orders (Ex. M41 ). THE workman was assigned with the work of drilling 64-202 pressure plates on K. M. T. drilling machine and as against the target of 153 Nos. per shift, the workman drilled only one piece and he was found idling for rest of the day and he was absent on 20. 3. 1982. On 22. 3. 1982, he completed only 3 Nos. of components for the whole shift. Since the workman was not performing his work as promised by the President of the union, the management wrote to the President bringing to his notice the go-slow tactic adopted by the workman. On 25. 3. 1982, the President of the Union informed the management that he was taking up the matter with the concerned workman. On 23. 3. 1982, the workman produced only one component as against the target of 155 Nos. and similarly he completed only 2 Nos. on 24. 3. 1982 as against the target of 82 Nos. per shift. When he was questioned about such low output, he maintained that as a group leader he cannot expected to do the normal work. On 29. 3. 1982, the workman wrote to the management stating that even though he had received letter dated 2. 3. 1982 from the President of the union and he had agreed to the conditions, he was not bound by the conditions imposed in the managements letter dated 2. 3. 1982, in view of the changed circumstance. THE go-slow activity of the workman continued. On 2. 4. 1982, the management issued a memo to the workman placing on record his output against the targeted output from the period 25. 3. 1982 to 1. 4. 1982 and further indicated that the workman had been permitted to resume duty on 20. 3. 1982 on condition that he would give the normal output, but he had gone back on that undertaking and the workman was called for to give a written undertaking expressing his willingness to perform his normal duties as an employee. By letter dated 4. 4. 1982, the workman took the stand that the letter dated 2. 4. 1982 had been issued with a view to deny him wages and also curb his trade union activities and thereby declined to give any undertaking. On 14. 4. 1982, the management passed an order dismissing the workman from service. THE relevant portion of the letter of termination is as follows :- "ref: 1. Our letter AR. AN. 34536 dt. 4. 2. 82 2. Our letter AR. AN. 34650 dt. 2. 3. 82

(3.) YOUR letter dated 4. 4. 82