P.VENKATACHALAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Award dated 20.04.2004 made in I.D.No.462 of 2002 passed by the 1st respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner states that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent Management as a Driver on 16.07.1986. He was working in Johnsonpet No.3 branch respondent Company on 28.07.2000, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained an injury in his spinal cord. He had to undergo medical treatment and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mettur on 28.07.2000 as an inpatient. He became immobile and subsequently shifted to a private Hospital and had taken treatment. The petitioner states that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Management and a charge memo was issued on 17.08.2000 as he was undergoing treatment, the petitioner could not able to submit his reply. The charge stipulates that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent, which would constitute a misconduct as per Section 19(1)(F) of the Standing orders of the 2nd respondent Company. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was ordered. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the W.P.No.15817 of 2005 Management and the petitioner gave statements on his behalf. The writ petitioner admitted his absence from 28.07.2000 onwards. He did not obtained any leave or any prior permission from the 2nd respondent. The Management also had marked four documents and based on the findings of the domestic enquiry officer, the 2 nd respondent issued a second show cause notice on 30.09.2000, asking the writ petitioner to submit his further explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation narrating the circumstances for his absence and further assured that he would not repeat it and accordingly, made a request for reinstatement. However, the explanation of the writ petitioner was not considered and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.01.2001.

(3.) The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer, Salem and the Conciliation ended in failure. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.D.No.462/2002. The petitioner did not question the fairness of the domestic enquiry before the 1st respondent. Thus, no oral evidence was let in by both sides by the 1st respondent. Exhibits P-1 was marked on the behalf of the writ W.P.No.15817 of 2005 petitioner and Exhibits R-1 to R-10 were marked on behalf of the Management. The Labour Court adjudicated the issues and passed an Award on 20.04.2004 in I.D.No.462/2002, holding that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were proved and therefore, the order of dismissal would be converted one as discharge. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition is filed. The writ petitioner mainly contends that the punishment is not in proportionate with the gravity proved charges and further, said that the Labour Court has failed to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.