ROYAL PRINTING WORKS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proprietor of the Royal Printing Works, a printing establishment on Mount Road, is the petitioner. In October 1957 he passed an order dismissing one Manickam, a watchman then in his employ. In December 1957 he dismissed another Kuppuswami who was working in the composing section. In respect of both these matters and certain others, industrial disputes were raised which were referred by the Government of Madras for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. So far as Manickam and Kuppuswami are concerned, the tribunal passed an order on 14 February 1958 directing their reinstatement. The present petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash this order of the tribunal.

(2.) THE case relating to Manickam may be first disposed of. He was a watchman in. the printing establishment of the petitioner from January 1957. On 27 September 1957 another employee named Balaraman reported to the proprietor that he had seen Manickam taking an aluminium vessel from the machine section and hiding it near a wall and that it was subsequently taken away by a woman. Manickam was therefore suspected of having removed some property belonging to the press. On 5 October 1957 charges were framed against him to the effect that he had removed some type material in that vessel. The enquiry was posted for 15 October 1957 and the management wrote to Manickam telling him that the enquiry had been fixed for that date. On that date Manickam wrote to say that he had not received a copy of the charges. The management them sent a memo of charges by registered post fixing 25 October 1957 as the date for the enquiry. But that letter was returned by the post office. On 25 October 1957 Manickam did not appear at the enquiry. The management thereupon dismissed Mm. The tribunal observed: It will thus be seen that Manickam had no knowledge of the enquiry; and further during the enquiry, there was utterly no evidence to show that Manickam was guilty of theft. The management did not find that Manickam had evaded the receipt of the notice sent to him by registered post. Nor was there any evidence to that effect. The conclusion of the tribunal, therefore, that Manickam had been dismissed without a proper enquiry cannot be disturbed. The writ petition so far as he is concerned must be dismissed.

(3.) I now go to Kuppuswami. He had been working in the Royal Printing Works for seven years, and, at the relevant time, he was in charge of the job section. On 28 September 1957 the management framed three charges against him. The University of Madras had placed an order with this firm for printing hall tickets for the Intermediate Examination. The first charge against Kuppuswami was that on these hall tickets instead of printing the conditions relating to the Intermediate Examination, conditions relating to the Pre-University Examination were printed. The second charge was that instead of printing only on one side of the paper the "tabulated result forms" of the university, he had them printed on both sides. The third charge was that while printing "cheque-covering-letters" on behalf of the Udipi Hotel a mistake was made, Udipi Hotel being printed at the top and States Hotel at the bottom.