NARENDRA RAJA TEXTILES LTD Vs. S ARUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the award dated 27. 1. 1998 in I. D. No. 132 of 1996, passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE first respondent was appointed as Workman in the Spinning Department of the petitioner Textiles Limited and for the misconduct committed by him, the management issued three charge memos on 25. 10. 1994, 15. 11. 1994 and 2. 5. 1995 to the effect that the first respondent was negligent in carrying out the work; misbehaviour with the superiors; trespass and unauthorised search of records in the Supervisor''s room. The last two charge memos were issued while the enquiry in respect of the first charge was pending. An enquiry was conducted in respect of all the three charge memos and in the enquiry it was found that all the three charges are proved and consequently the first respondent was dismissed by the management on 1. 1. 1996. The said dismissal order was challenged in I. D. No. 132 of 1996 and the Labour Court agreed with the management that all the charges were established and also found that the first respondent was extremely negligent in carrying out his work, he trespassed unauthorisedly into the Supervisor''s room and had been perusing files and registers without permission and the first respondent was running 40 spindles empty and when questioned, he had abused the Supervisor indecently. However, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment under Section 11-A of the I. D. Act by stating that the delinquency are only minor misconducts and even though the same are proved, dismissal is not warranted and the punishment imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate. The grievance of the petitioner Management is without even issuing lesser punishment, the second respondent directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and with payment of 50% of backwages. The said award is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/management submits that the charges are very serious in nature and the same are clearly proved before the Enquiry Officer and taking note of seven misconducts committed by the first respondent on earlier occasions, the first respondent was dismissed from service. The learned counsel further argued that the Labour Court itself held that if the misconduct of this type is encouraged, it will lead to indiscipline among the workers against the Industrial peace and further held that no prudent management is expected to ignore and bear with such type of misconducts. In paragraph 11 of the award, the learned Judge observed as follows,