P J LAZAR Vs. LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a "head conductor" in the Anally Division of the Valparai Estate in Coimbatore District. He was dismissed from service on 12th December, 1969, by the management with effect from 17th December, 1969. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute as regards his non-employment and the matter was referred to the labour Court by G. O. Rt. No. 127, Department of Labour, dated 16th January, 1971, and the said dispute was taken on the file by the first respondent Labour Court as Industrial Dispute No. 10 of 1971.

(2.) BEFORE the first respondent, the petitioner contended that he was a senior staff member with nearly 22 years of blameless service and that in view of the strained relationship between him and the manager of the estate, one R. K. Seth, the latter with a view to get rid of him on some ground or other, framed fictitious and flimsy charges against him and ultimately recommended the punishment of dismissal which has been accepted by the management. The petitioner also contended that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair or proper and, therefore, the order of dismissal based on such an enquiry cannot be sustained. The petitioner also alleged that the order of dismissal was an act of victimisation. The management, however, in their counter-affidavit, justified their action in dismissing the petitioner from service and stated that the dismissal was for proper and justifiable reasons and that there are no grounds for interference by the Labour Court with the order of dismissal which was one passed in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act. The management also denied that the order of dismissal was, in any way, an act of victimisation.

(3.) THEREFORE, the main questions that came to be considered by the first respondent Labour Court were, whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper and whether the order of dismissal was an act of victimisation. On these rival contentions, the first respondent has held that the domestic enquiry said to have been held by the management was not fair and proper and therefore the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted. The first respondent then went into the evidence adduced by the parties and ultimately found, on the basis of the said evidence, that out of the nine charges framed against the petitioner by the management, charges 8 and 9 had not been proved and only charges 1 to 7 had been proved. Though the first respondent held that charges 1 to 7 had been duly proved, he took the view that these charges, though proved, will not come under Standing Order 14 (c), (g)and (i) which are said to have been violated by the petitioner. The first respondent, however, felt that the above charges which had been held proved will definitely amount to disobedience of the orders of the superiors which is a violation of the Standing Order 14 (a), which is as follows: "wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. "