J EBENESER JAMES Vs. GANAPATHI MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has emerged from the following facts : "first respondent mills is a public limited company, engaged in the production of cotton yarn. Appellant was working with first respondent in Roving Department. On 29/30. 09. 1991, he completed his third shift from 12. 00 a. m. to 07. 00 a. m. On 30. 09. 1991, at about 07. 15 a. m. , outside the mill gate, he, along with two other co-workers assaulted another co-worker, by name, Velu, causing injuries to him. Velu belonged to D. M. K. Union, while the other three persons belonged to C. I. T. U. The said Velu was subjected to assault by them, since he allegedly uttered indecent remarks against their president shanmuga Velayudham. Velu lodged a police complaint against the three workmen before the management as well as the police. On the strength of the complaint, a charge memo was issued to the appellant and thereafter he was suspended from service on 03. 10. 1991. Appellant submitted an explanation on 11. 10. 1991 and since it failed to satisfy the management, a domestic inquiry was ordered and conducted. In spite of notice sent to the appellant, he did not turn up for the inquiry on the first occasion and subsequently he appeared and the inquiry was over. On the date of examination, Velu stated that he withdrew the complaint against the three workmen and while he was quizzed over the reason for his withdrawal of the complaint, he responded that as they tendered apology, he withdrew the complaint. On 18. 11. 1991, the enquiry officer submitted his finding, holding that charges against the appellant were proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22. 11. 1991. Since he did not submit any explanation, the management was left with no option except to dismiss the appellant from service on 19. 12. 1991. The appellant raised a dispute under Section 2 A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Officer, which ended in failure of conciliation. Hence, he filed I. D. No. 207 of 1992 on the file of labour Court, Madurai, which was transferred to Labour Court, Tirunelveli, and tried in I. D. No. 576 of 1992. The said Court passed an award on 14. 07. 1994, directing the management/first respondent to reinstate the appellant with back wages and all attendant benefits and also continuity of service. Aggrieved over the said order of the Labour Court, the management preferred a writ petition, wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the facts of the case in the light of the legal position on the subject and passed an order, reducing the punishment to one of reinstatement, without back wages for the period from 19. 12. 1991 to 19. 11. 1994. As against the said order, the appellant has come before this Court, by way of this appeal. "

(2.) THE entire issue in this case revolves around a circumstance, which is, the withdrawal of complaint by the injured Velu.

(3.) FOR a better appreciation of the rival submissions, it has become imperative for this Court to highlight certain aspects from the inquiry proceedings, which are as under : "while Velu appeared before the enquiry officer, for a query whether he presented the complaint, his answer was in the affirmative. FOR another question whether the incident alleged in the complaint was true, he responded that since they compromised the matter, he withdrew the complaint. He further stated that since the three workmen tendered apology, he was obliged to come to a compromise. In cross-examination, he told that he gave a complaint through Secretary Brahmanayagam, who obtained his signature while he was in hospital and he did not know who wrote the complaint. On the other hand, the appellant appeared before the enquiry officer and deposed that since the complainant withdrew his complaint, he was not an offender. He further stated that he did not assault Velu and tender apology. "