S NAGAMUTHU Vs. MANAGEMENT OF CATTER PILLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The second respondent in all these writ petitions was a workman in M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited (Earth Moving Equipments Division), Chennai Car Plant, Thiruvallore (in short M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited). On 23.07.1999, a charge sheet was issued to the second respondent by M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited in respect of alleged misconduct committed by him. The second respondent has submitted his reply on 07.08.1999 denying all the charges. An enquiry was ordered into the said charges. Before the Enquiry Officer, as many as five witnesses were examined on the side of the Management and the second respondent was examined on his side. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.09.1999 thereby holding that the charges stood proved. On 01.10.1999, the second respondent was furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and he was called upon to show cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be awarded to him. But the second respondent did not give any reply. In time while during the year 2000, transfer of M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited was effected and M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., took over the management. The entire administrative machinery engaged in attending to the preliminary work who were employed in Hindustan Motor Limited were also absorbed by M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. There is some controversy as to whether the second respondents name was included in the list of employees who were absorbed by M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., to continue in employment or not. However, the said question need not be resolved in this writ petition. Subsequently, M/s. Hindustan Motor Limited dismissed the second respondent from service. Thereafter, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the first respondent Labour Court and the same is now pending.

(3.) In the said Industrial Dispute, the second respondent has raised certain questions touching the validity of the report of the Enquiry Officer besides raising other questions relating to the charges.