BALAJI OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. LABOUR OFFICER-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition No.1333/2007 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner, Balaji Oil Industries Private Limited is engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil and vanaspati. The petitioner Management is having two boiler plants operated in the industry. There are about 34 workers working in the industry during the relevant point of time and they are classified as operators, firemen and helpers. The 2nd respondent was a fireman and was working in VTA-10 thermic heater boiler and his job was to ensure that the woodlog is heated in the boiler and to ensure adequate generation of steam for production activities. The 2nd respondent should remove the ashes accumulated then and there to ensure smooth functioning of machine without any stoppage of production.

(3.) On 03.08.2007, when the 2nd respondent was in the second shift in the thermic heater plant, the shift Chemist, Mr.B.Ravichandran noticed that the ashes were accumulated in a huge quantity and informed the 2nd respondent to remove the same so as to avoid damage to the machinery and otherwise, it would halt production activities. But the 2nd respondent refused to heed to his instructions and left the shift without removing the ashes. The shift Supervisor gave a complaint on 03.08.2007, against the 2nd respondent for his act of disobedience. In respect of the above misconduct, a charge sheet dated 13.08.2007, was issued, as the allegation is a misconduct under Rule 16(a) to Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu Model Standing Orders Act, 1947. The 2nd respondent gave a reply on 16.08.2007, making certain allegations. Being not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner Management ordered for a domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by providing an opportunity to the workman concerned. The petitioner also participated in the process of domestic enquiry. The 2nd respondent workman cross examined the witnesses. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a co-worker was also examined and a document was marked. Based on the documents as well as the evidences placed before the Enquiry Officer, he submitted a report holding that the charges against the workman are proved. Based on the proved charges, a second show cause notice was issued and finally an order of dismissal was passed by the writ petitioner Management.