R SANTHANAM Vs. MADURA COATS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 21. 01. 2000, made in W. P. No. 9006 of 1992, in and by which, the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Management.

(2.) THE workman/appellant herein, viz. , R. Santhanam, was employed as a Junior Electrician in the Electrical Department of the first respondent / Madura Coats Limited, Tuticorin. According to the Management, on 12. 02. 1988, he was directed by his superior to rectify the electrical defects in three Hoists. Each one of the hoists has more than one door lock switch. If the door look switches are not in their places, the doors of the hoists will not get locked but would remain opened and if the hoist is operated in such a condition, accidents are likely to happen. According to the Management, it is the duty of the Mechanic Shop Fitter to remove the door locks in case there is any mechanical defect. The workman is in no way connected with the door lock switches. Further, whoever removes the door lock switches in the hoists, he should display a warning sign board in the hoists. The workman was instructed by the the Junior Engineer of the Electrical Section to attend to the electrical defects in those three hoists and if necessary to get the assistance from the Mechanic Shop Fitter. According to the Management, the workman, instead of getting the assistance of the Mechanical Shop Fitter for removing the door lock switches, had himself removed the same. When it was noticed and he was asked to re-fix the door lock switches back in the hoists, the workman refused to carry out the job. The act of the workman, according to the Management, constituted a serious act of misconduct, hence, a show cause notice dated 12. 02. 1988 was issued. The workman submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the same, enquiry was conducted. Finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 29. 06. 1988 holding that the charges levelled against the workman are proved. The Management accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a second show cause notice, dated 15. 07. 1988, requiring the workman to submit his explanation for the proposed punishment. He submitted his explanation on 21. 07. 1988 and 24. 08. 1988. As the explanation was not satisfactory, by order dated 05. 09. 1988, the workman was dismissed with effect from 05. 09. 1988.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 282 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai. No oral evidence was let in on the side of the workman and the Management, however, documents M1 to M52 were marked on the side of the Management. The Labour Court, after analysing the materials, concluded that the enquiry was fair and proper, however, after finding that the Workman had rendered unblemished service for 12 years, by concluding that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges against the workman, modified the same by ordering reinstatement without backwages. Not satisfied with the reduction of punishment, the Management filed W. P. No. 9006 of 1992. The learned single Judge, accepting the case of the Management, quashed the award of the labour court in modifying the punishment, hence, the present Writ Appeal by the workman.