MANAGEMENT CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Venkatesan (second respondent) was a 'workman' within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in Carborandum Universal (writ petitioner), hereinafter referred to as the Management for brevity. He was issued with a charge memo dated 7.11.1996, in which the following accusations were made:-

(2.) After finding that the domestic enquiry proceedings were properly conducted, the Labour Court proceeded to see whether the evidence adduced in the enquiry supported the conclusion of the enquiry officer ? Therefore, the Labour Court proceeded to find out whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges No.2 and 3. On behalf of the workman, it was submitted before the Labour Court that criminal prosecution was launched against the workman for assaulting Mr.M.A.Murugappan, but, he was acquitted by the criminal Court in C.C.No.18 of 1997 on 26.11997 and therefore, the said judgment is binding on the management. Similarly, the Labour Court also went into the materials to find out whether there was sufficient evidence to hold the workman guilty of the charge No.3. The Labour Court also went into the punishment aspect. Ultimately, the Labour Court passed the award in I.D.No.220 of 1998 on 31.3.2003 holding that the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer are supported by evidence, but, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment and directed the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages, challenging which, the management is before this Court. Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the management deposited a sum of Rs.1,33,842.00 towards back wages and the workman has also withdrawn 50% of the same. Apart from that, the management has paid a sum of Rs.4,02,000.00 as 17(B) wages till Jan., 2017.

(3.) Heard Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the management and Mr.Siva Shamnugam, learned counsel appearing for the workman.