ADAIKALAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four appeals before this Division Bench. W.A.(MD) Nos.1417 of 2014 and 586 of 2017 have been filed by the Management of T.S. Samy & Co, Suriyan Beedi Manufacturers, Trichy represented by its Managing Partner. W.A.(MD) No.555 of 2017 has been filed by workman R. Adaikalam, while W.A.(MD) No.556 of 2017 has been filed by another workman R.P. Shanmugam. All the four appeals are directed against the common order dated 06 June 2014 made in W.P.(MD) Nos.9080 and 9081 of 2009.

(2.) The dispute between the two workmen and the Management dates back to the year 1983. The Management is a Beedi manufacturing industry. Therefore, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958 would cover the case on hand. The Management terminated the services of two workmen and aggrieved by the said termination, an Industrial Dispute was raised. I.D. No. 197 of 1992 was dismissed on 04 Aug. 1994 and questioning the same, the two workmen filed W.P.(MD) No.14513 of 1995. The said petition was allowed by order dated 20 Sept. 2002 and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court.

(3.) After remand, the matter was taken up and the Labour Court, by award dated 16 March 2005 dismissed the Industrial Dispute petition. Assailing the same, R. Adaikalam filed W.P.(MD) No. 9080 of 2009 and R.P. Shanmugam filed W.P.(MD) No.9081 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge, by a common order dated 06 June 2014. The learned single Judge noted that Sec. 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu Beedi Industrial Premises (Regulation of Conditions of work) Act, 1958 is pari materia with Sec. 41(1) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1941. The learned Judge, after referring to various reported decisions held that if the termination is for prove misconduct, no notice is necessary. If the termination is for alleged misconduct, an enquiry must be held giving opportunity to the worker and then only arrive at a conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of the misconduct alleged against the worker.