P SIVASAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is filed at the instance of the writ petitioner questioning the order in partly allowing the writ petition. THE appellant was appointed and he joined the services of the second respondent-management of M/s Tan India Limited (Wattle Extract Division), Mettupalayam on 28.8.74. While he was working as an Operator, a back fire occurred in spray dryer plant on 2.12.90 due to the tripping of exhaust motor in the burner of spray dryer plant. In view of the said accident, two feet length of cable wire was damaged. A show cause notice dated 19.12.90 was issued calling upon the appellant to explain the cause, as he was in-charge of the spray dryer plant. Though an explanation dated 21.12.90 was submitted, not satisfied with the explanation, a charge sheet was issued on 6.2.91 and an enquiry was conducted. Subsequently another show cause notice dated 12.4.91 was issued on the ground that on 11.4.91, during 'B' shift at about 16.00 hours, the appellant operated the spray dryer plant-II without informing the shift electrician resulting in overloading of the generator. THE act of the appellant was considered to be a misconduct under Clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders. THEreafter, a charge sheet was issued and an enquiry was conducted. In both the enquiries, the charges were held to be proved. THErefore, a second show cause notice dated 26.8.91 was issued and the explanation being not satisfactory, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 1.1.92.

(2.) THE appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No,221 of 1992 and the said dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. Before the Labour Court, neither the appellant nor the second respondent-management examined any witness. But the appellant marked two documents, namely, J.C.Sekhar's fitness certificate and identity card. On behalf of the second respondent-management, as many as 65 documents were marked. THE Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute in part and held that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards compensation.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the respective grievance of the appellant-workman as well as the second respondent-management. The learned Judge had considered elaborately the award as well as the entire enquiry proceedings. In fact the learned Judge had observed that no oral evidence was let in by both the parties and as against the two documents filed by the appellant, the management had filed 65 documents. The finding of the Labour Court that the appellant did not advert to any of the materials placed before the enquiry officer by the management was considered by this Court and, as they being factual finding, have not been interfered. It appears that before the Labour Court, it was primarily contended that inasmuch as the past record of service was not taken into consideration, the quantum of punishment is disproportionate. The learned Judge, while considering the said submission, found that inasmuch as the punishment was imposed based upon the proved misconduct and not based upon past record of service and merely because the second show cause notice did not mention the past record of service by itself would not vitiate the order of dismissal. Holding so, the learned Judge upheld the finding of the Labour Court in the said respect.