MANAGEMENT OF MADRAS FERTILISERS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT II KUPPUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983 is the management of Madras Fertilisers Limited and it shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'management'. THE second-respondent in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983, who died pending the same, was in the employment of the management and he shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'employee'. THE employee was the sole appellant in W.A. No. 18 of 1984. His legal representative has been brought on record as third-respondent in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983 and as the second-appellant in W.A. No. 18 of 1984 and she shall be, when occasion comes, referred to as the 'legal representative'.

(2.) THE employee suffered an order of dismissal from service in disciplinary action at the hands of the management. He raised an industrial dispute and that was adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Madras, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Labour Court'. THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was proved and the employee was guilty of insubordination and disobedience and his past record of service, being not complimentary to the employee, also warranted the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. As a result, the Labour Court passed an award dismissing the claim of the employee for reinstatement.

(3.) WRIT Appeal No. 18 of 1984 is the WRIT Appeal originally preferred by the employee against the order of the learned single Judge in so far it denied back wages to him. It is not as if the employee stood exonerated of his culpable conduct as a whole. Only on the ground that the taking note of the past record of service by the management in imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service violated the principles of natural justice, the learned single Judge deemed fit to interfere with the award of the Labour Court holding that there has not been a proper exercise of the discretion under Section11-A of the Act. The learned single Judge, we are convinced, was in order when he deprived the employee of back wages for the period in question. The WRIT Appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.