S ARUCHAMY Vs. NAVENDRARAJA TEXTILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra Court Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP No.4874 of 1998, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent Management was allowed, setting aside the award of the Labour Court made in ID No.132 of 1996 dated 27.01.1998. By the said award, the Labour Court had interfered with the punishment imposed on the workmen on the ground that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the proved delinquencies on the part of the workman.

(2.) The respondent was working as sider in the respondent Mills from 08.08.1977. He has also acting as a General Representative in a Trade Union called as Hindu Mazdoor Sangam. During the course of his employment, the Management charged him with delinquencies of go slow and also unauthorized entry in the Supervisor s room in the absence of the Supervisor and inspecting the files maintained by the Supervisor. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted after issue a show cause notice and the Enquiry Officer found that the delinquent employee was guilty of the charges. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Management issued a second show cause notice on 15.11.1994. The employee submitted his explanation for a second show cause notice on 23.11.1994. Inasmuch as the explanation was found to unsatisfactory, the Management by its order dated 31.11995 imposed the punishment of removal from service on the employee.

(3.) Aggrieved the employee moved the Labour Court by way of ID No.132 of 1996. The Labour Court, by its interim order dated 04.11.1997 held that the enquiry was fair and proper and thereafter, heard the Industrial Dispute under Section 11(A) of the Act. On reappraisal of the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, the Labour Court concluded that the findings of the Enquiry officer cannot be termed as perverse and approved the said findings. The Labour Court also held that all the three charges were proved, however, the Labour Court concluded that misconducts are not serious enough to attract the punishment from removal from service, modified the punishment into one of reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages.