THE MANAGEMENT Vs. T. KULOTHUNGAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Labour Court dated 10.03.2004 made in I.D.No.439 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Labour Court, Chennai is challenged in this writ petition. The writ petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Bank registered under the Provisions of The Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Corporation Act, 1983.

(2.) The first respondent workman was employed in the writ petitioner management as Salesman on 21.08.1987. The allegation against the first respondent workman is that he was un-authorisedly absent for many months and he was irregular in attending his duties. The writ petitioner management placed this writ petitioner under suspension on 10.11.1987. However, the disciplinary proceedings initiated was not proceeded in accordance with the procedures as contemplated. The management issued a charge memo dated 09.02.1988 to the first respondent setting out certain allegation. The writ petitioner was directed to submit the explanation and the first respondent workmen had not submitted any explanation in response to the charge memo issued by the writ petitioner management against him. The allegation against the first respondent is that he had committed an act of negligence in respect of distributing the essential commodities to the public under the Public Distribution System and was himself irregular in attending duties. However, the first respondent workmen submitted his representation to reinstate him on duty. The writ petitioner management also considered the representation and allowed him to join duty. The writ petitioner states that in spite of the revocation of the order of suspension, the first respondent workmen did not attend duty and failed to fullfil the promises made by him in his representations.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that no leniency would be shown to the first respondent workmen since he had not only remained absent from his duty but committed certain irregular activities under Public Distribution System. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner management issued an order of termination in proceedings dated 21.02.1988. Even after the order of termination, the writ petitioner management permitted the first respondent workmen to join duty. However, it is contended by the first respondent workmen that he responded to the request made by the management and he was not permitted to perform his duties. Under these circumstances, the workman raised an Industrial Disputes under section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before Labour Court, Chennai.