LAWS(MAD)-1979-2-27

MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

Decided On February 21, 1979
MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the Labour Court made in I. D. 25 of 1976. The second respondent/workman was charge-sheeted for the offence of theft of the following six articles, namely, surgical cotton, Boric Acid Powder, Sulphanide Powder, surgical Dressing, Turpentine and Detol. The workman was charge-sheeted and on 9. 1. 1975 he was called upon to give his explanation on or before 13th January, 1975. He did not furnish his explanation. By letter dated 16. 1. 75, he was directed to appear before the petitioner for an enquiry on 21st January, 1975. On that day the 2nd respondent submitted his written explanation. At the request of the workmen, the enquiry was held on 23rd January, 1975. In a properly conducted domestic enquiry it was found that the charge has been made out and the workman was dismissed from service. This dismissal lead to industrial dispute and came to be referred for adjudication in G. O. Rt. No. 222, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30th January, 1976, It was that, which came for adjudication as I. D. 25 of 1976.

(2.) IT was contended by the workman that the domestic enquiry was biased, that he was not given the assistance of a co-worker, that no opportunity was given to offer his explanation regarding the proposed punishment, that the evidence of the witnesses was not properly considered and that, therefore, the order of dismissal is unjust and illegal. The Labour Court posed to issues for consideration, namely,

(3.) ON the second issue, namely, the quantum of punishment, exercising its discretion under Section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) had ultimately passed an award setting aside the dismissal and ordering reinstatement of the workman in service without continuity of service and without back wages. It has also directed that the workman would start his career afresh under the respondent/petitioner herein. It is to quash this, the present Writ Petition has been preferred.