LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-674

PRESIDENT, S.A. 62, PERIAKALRAYAN HILL, TRIBE LAMP (LARGE SIZE MULTIPURPOSE) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. G. MEGANATHAN

Decided On June 18, 2019
President, S.A. 62, Periakalrayan Hill, Tribe Lamp (Large Size Multipurpose) Co-Operative Society Ltd. Appellant
V/S
G. MEGANATHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Co-operative Society was founded in 1987. The respondent joined as an employee of the Society as a Clerk on 14/8/1989 and subsequently was promoted as Assistant Secretary on 1/1/1991. In 2011, the respondent stopped reporting for work without any intimation to the Society. The Society, which waited almost for a year for the respondent to resume duty, found that the petitioner did not turn up at all. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for unauthorised absence. Although the respondent received the show cause notice, he neither reported for work nor submitted any reply. Thereafter, the Society sent communications to him on 24/4/2012, 10/5/2012, 12/6/2012 and 16/7/2012 calling upon the respondent to report back for work.

(2.) Since there was no response at all from the respondent, a domestic enquiry was ordered and even in the domestic enquiry, the respondent did not choose to participate. The report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the charge proved against the respondent vide Report dtd. 18/3/2013. A copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the respondent calling upon him to submit his reply and even in respect of the same, there was no response from the respondent. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued and the respondent finally responded and sought time to reply to the second show cause notice. However, the Society felt that the request was unreasonable and therefore, finally chosen to terminate his services on 5/4/2013.

(3.) The respondent, in pursuance of the communications, raised a dispute before the Conciliation Authority. In the Conciliation, the erstwhile President of the Society signed a Settlement under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, consenting to provide employment to the respondent. According to the Society, the erstwhile President was not authorised to sign the Settlement at all and no resolution was passed by the Society to that effect. According to the Petitioner Society, signing of Settlement by the erstwhile President was without any authority and the same was invalid.