MANAGEMENT OF CHEMPLAST Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant management is situated at mettur, Salem District, engaged in silicon metal (pure) Electronic grade in the form of poly, mone, ingets and waters. It was established in the year 1986 having employed about 61 workmen. The second respondent was employed as a skilled worker in the Instrument department on December 1, 1985 and was made permanent on December 1, 1986. He was drawing total wages of Rs. 1995/- per mensem.

(2.) ON June 26, 1992 while the second respondent was in the general shift, one venkatesan, a trade apprentice was also working in the shift, who is a squint eyed man. When the said Venkatesan was working in the department, after completion of his work at about 4. 45 p. m. he placed the level transmitter under the work table. The Engineering assistant by name Shankar asked Venkatesan to clean the diaphragm of the transmitter. However, the second respondent advised venkatesan that the transmitter should not be placed under the table and asked him to keep the same in the shelf, for which Venkatesan responded by nodding his head. The second respondent once again asked him to do the work. But Venkatesan, in reply, uttered monosyllable word "um. " Again Venkatesan was asked by the second respondent to keep the transmitter in the shelf for which Venkatesan stared at him and he continued to clean the diaphragm. Peeved at this, the second respondent told him that he should not talk with him in that fashion and he further said that if he stared at him, he would thrash him so as to make his eye to turn to other side. Venkatesan took exception to the language. In a moment, the second respondent slapped Venkatesan on his cheek. At that time, the Engineering Assistant shankar advised him not to behave like this towards an Apprentice. Ignoring his words, the second respondent slapped Venkatesan thrice.

(3.) ON June 27, 1992 charge sheet came to be issued to the second respondent charging him with misconduct under Standing Order 24 (a. h. ). When the Charge sheet was served on the second respondent, he refused to receive it. Another charge memo dated June 27, 1992 was also issued for refusal to receive the communication from company under the standing Order 24 (a. h. ). Thereafter, both the charge sheets were displayed on the Notice board.