K VELUSAMY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined in the service of the second respondent Corporation in the year, 1981, as a Trainee. THEreafter, he was appointed as a Junior Tradesman and he was posted at the Udumalpet Depot of the second respondent Corporation. As a Junior Tradesman, he had to work under the supervision of the Junior Engineer/ Assistant Engineer of the Udumalpet Depot. As such he was discharging his duties sincerely and efficiently.

(3.) IT has been further stated that the second respondent Corporation had not produced the attendance register to prove the allegation that the petitioner had made certain alteration therein. Only three interested witnesses had been examined on behalf of the second respondent Corporation to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. However, they were not in a position to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner. Further, they had refused to answer the questions put to them by the petitioner during the enquiry. Further, the petitioner had not been cross examined at the time of the enquiry. The witnesses examined by the petitioner had fully supported his case. After the enquiry had been conducted, the enquiry officer had filed the enquiry report, dated 5.11.1992, stating that the charge that the petitioner had altered the attendance register was not proved. In respect of the charge that he had delayed in changing the clutch of the concerned vehicle, he had not given clear finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. However, in the concluding portion of the enquiry report, the enquiry officer had stated that the charges framed against the petitioner, in relation to standing order No.14 (k)(t)(aa), were proved, while the charge in respect of the violation of the standing order No.14(ab) had not been proved. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent Corporation had issued a second show cause notice, dated 13.1.1993, referring to the enquiry report, as well as the previous warning/punishment imposed on the petitioner on the earlier occasions, without any enquiry. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, dated 2.2.1993, stating that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct.