M.GURUNATHAN Vs. MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 05.05.2011 passed in I.D.No.428 of 2002 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was employed as an Electroplater and thereafter promoted to various grades. Based on some false set of allegations regarding theft of certain items, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that certain charges are framed and he is of the opinion that the charges are framed based on presumptions and assumptions and without any valid document. Thus, the charges framed against the writ petitioner were vague and incapable of being enquired into and the punishment of dismissal itself was inappropriate and the Labour Court failed to consider all these aspects while adjudicating the issues.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the writ petitioner was an Office Bearer of the union and charges were framed in order to victimize the writ petitioner and these aspects were not considered by the Labour Court in its award. The enquiry was not conducted properly. The principles of natural justice has been violated. The list of documents as well as list of witnesses were not furnished to the writ petitioner and the benefit of defence assistance was denied. Citing all these instances the petitioner reiterated that based on such vague charges, improper enquiry major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed and therefore the present writ petition is to be considered for the purpose of scrapping the order of the Labour Court.