P SAMPATH; C S JOTHIRAJ AND S KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND MANAGEMENT OF HAPPY BEE KNITTING INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were working as Cutting Masters of the second respondent-Company. The second respondent had a well-established export business. There were about 350 workmen. The workmen of the second respondent-Company formed a Union which was affiliated to CITU.

(2.) The first petitioner was the Secretary of the Union. The second and third petitioners were active members. According to the petitioners, it is because of their activities as Union members that the petitioner decided to terminate their services and that they have been victimized. On 15-06-1992, the first petitioner was not allowed to work. When the same was represented to the Management by the other workers of the cutting section, the others were also not permitted to work. On 18-06-1992, the Union represented to the Management to allow all the workers to perform their duties. The Management did not respond to it. From 23-06-1992, all the other workers of the Company represented to the Management to allow the workers of the cutting section to perform work. Then, all of them were also not allowed to work. Conciliation proceedings were held and before the Conciliation Officer, two letters were handedover. One letter was dated 19-06-1992 wherein it was stated that notice was issued to the first petitioner framing some charges, which the first petitioner refused to receive and that the other workers were also abstaining from their own accord and that all the workers should be directed to return to the work. On 29-06-1992, all the workers were suspended pending disciplinary action. In the show cause notice dated 15-06-1992, the charges were as follows:

(3.) By the letter dated 02-07-1992, the first petitioner denied the charges. All the petitioners submitted their explanation for the charge-sheet dated 27-06-1992. The allegation that in the charge memo that the three petitioners alongwith others stopped the workers from entering the company on 24-06-1992 and threatened some of them and that on the same evening, the three petitioners have allegedly threatened and not allowed the lorry driver to remove the goods from the Company were all denied. Not satisfied with the explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted. According to the petitioners, it was conducted without their consent. Only observers, who were co-workmen were alone permitted on the workmen side while the Management is represented by the Presenting Officer who is a law knowing person. The request of the petitioner to have an Advocate was ignored by the Enquiry Officer. On 11-07-1992, all the petitioners were questioned by the Enquiry Officer about the alleged charges, and they denied them as false and frivolous. The first Management Witness M.W.1 was examined and the enquiry was posted for cross examination on 15-07-1992. On 15-07-1992, though the workmen's observer was absent, the enquiry proceeded and M.W.1 was cross-examined. At their request, the enquiry was adjourned to 18-07-1992. On 18-07-1992, the earlier Presenting Officer was changed and another person represented the Management. The petitioner protested to this. The enquiry was adjourned to 23-07-1992. On 23-07-1992, the petitioners were asked to continue with the cross-examination without considering their protest to the change of the Presenting Officer. The cross-examination was done for some time. The enquiry was then adjourned to 28-07-1992. The cross-examination continued and the enquiry was adjourned to 29-07-1992. On 29-07-1992, the petitioners expressed their dissatisfaction. The enquiry was adjourned without informing the next enquiry date. Then, the enquiry was posted on 06-08-1992 again the petitioners objected to the change of the Management representative and then gave a letter pleading the second petitioner's sickness. They refused to take part in the enquiry and walked out. They were et ex parte. The enquiry continued. The Enquiry Officer filed his report.