MANAGEMENT OF CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Karthick for the appellant and Mrs. Anna Mathew for the second respondent. The management is the appellant in this writ appeal. Aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1493 of 1986, dated February 13, 1996, ordering back-wages and continuity of service, the above writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) The second respondent was employed as a temporary workman on different spells between December, 1978, and July, 1980. On August 20, 1980, he was appointed as a probationer for one year with effect from August 29, 1980. Since the second respondent's performance was not satisfactory the management by their letter dated January 20, 1982, extended his probation upto June 30, 1983. On January 24, 1982, at about 1 p.m., the second respondent abused his supervisor one K. K. Periasami. According to the management, the second respondent was not found in the work spot and when the supervisor A. K. Kumar questioned against it he again abused him and in respect of the above misconduct, the second respondent was given with two separate charge-sheets dated January 28, 1982. In respect of the charge-sheet relating to the incident as against the supervisor, K. Periasami, which was held to be proved in the domestic enquiry, the second respondent was awarded punishment of suspension for 15 days from July 2, 1982, to August 3, 1982. In respect of the second charge-sheet dated January 28, 1982, relating to the misconduct committed against the supervisor, A. K. Kumar, on March 27, 1982, the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. Again, another charge-sheet was issued on April 2, 1982, to the second respondent. In respect of this charge-sheet also a domestic enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. Considering the poor performance and proved misconduct committed by the second respondent on August 24, 1982, the management passed orders terminating the probation of the second respondent with effect from September 30, 1982.

(3.) The second respondent raised an industrial dispute challenging the non-employment and the same was referred for adjudication before the first respondent in Industrial Disputes No. 481 of 1983. On a consideration of the materials placed before the first respondent, who passed this award dated July 8, 1985, holding that the charges levelled against the second respondent as per the charge-sheet dated January 28, 1982, were not proved and in respect of the charge-sheet dated April 2, 1982, the charges were held to be proved by invoking his power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directed reinstatement of the second respondent without back wages and without continuity of service. Thereafter, on September 1, 1985, the second respondent wrote to the management seeking implementation of the award. The management on September 26, 1985, sent a communication advising the second respondent to report for work on October 3, 1985. On that date he was reinstated in service in terms of the award of the first respondent dated July 8, 1985. The second respondent was also issued with an order dated October 4, 1985, appointing him on probation from October 3, 1985. After seeking implementation of the award, the second respondent after a period of six months filed W.P. No. 1493 of 1986 challenging the award of the first respondent. Before the learned single Judge the appellant-management contended that once the second respondent has accepted the award and sought for its implementation, it would amount to acquiescence on that behalf and that he cannot challenge the award. They also contended that the second respondent was only a probationer and even during the probation his performance and conduct were not satisfactory and in a short period of two years he has been served with a memo for abusing his superiors and that the award did not suffer from any error of law which can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated February 13, 1996, held that in the past, the second respondent was not involved in any misconduct of committing offences involving forgery, cheating, misappropriation, etc., and that he did not hurt anybody and that he was only in the habit of abusing his superiors in harsh language and such a language depends upon the social status of the workman and that denial of back-wages and continuity of service will have far-reaching effect on the part of the second respondent including pension and family pension. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition.