K RAMASWAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition because the State Government had refused to refer the issue regarding his nonemployment by the second respondent, Ammapet Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd. , Ammapettai for adjudication by the Labour Court. The impugned order of the Government reads as follows: The Government have examined the conciliation report of the Labour Officer, Salem in regard to the industrial dispute between the workman. Thiru K. Ramasamy and the Management of Ammapet Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limited, Salem over the issue regarding his non-employment and pass the following orders: It is clear that the charges against the workman have been proved in the properly conducted enquiry. The Government do not, therefore, consider it necessary to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed by the second respondent from the year 1959. Between 1. 7. 1974 and 30. 9. 1974 the petitioner was working in T. Nagar branch at Madras. While so, the management found that there was shortage of stock in respect of that period. Therefore, the management, the second respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner alleging that he failed to furnish sureties in the place of the person who had died and the other who had got himself discharged and that he did not make good half of the stock deficit amount which he agreed to pay and that he absented himself from duty till 17. 3. 1975. On these charges a domestic enquiry was held and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 17. 3. 1975.

(3.) MR. Somayaji for the petitioner contended that under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the State Government was bound to give reasons for refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The learned counsel submitted that on the face of the order the only reason given by the State Government for refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court is that the charges against the workman had been proved in the properly conducted enquiry. Section 11a was introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act on 15. 12. 1971. Under the said section wide powers equivalent to appellate powers have been conferred on Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals. It will be now open to the Labour Court to examine a case on the merits and if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified it will be open to the Labour Court to set aside such order and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of lesser punishment. In the light of this section Mr. Somayaji urged that the Labour Court has power in a given case to consider the question whether even if the charges against the workman had been proved in a regularly conducted enquiry, the punishment meted out to the workman was just and proper or whether only a lesser punishment was called for. In the submission of the learned counsel, the State Government ought to have applied its mind to the question of punishment and considered whether from the point of view of the punishment there was any necessity to refer the dispute to the Labour Court.