MANAGEMENT OF SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I CHANDRAVIHAR MJ ROAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by the Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, challenging the correctness of the order passed in W.P.No. 11205 of 1993 instituted by it, questioning the validity of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in rejecting M.P.No.115 of 1987 moved by it in I.D.No.56 of 1984. Miscellaneous Petition No. 115 of 1987 was moved by the Management of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approving the action taken in dismissing the respondent/workman from service with effect from 14.05.1987. The relevant facts are that, the second respondent/workman was working as a coal cutter and he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry whereat, he was found guilty of the misconduct falling under Rule 16(4) of the Companies Standing Orders. Hence, he has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 14.05.1984. The case of the respondent/workman was that, a grossly disproportionate punishment was sought to be imposed against him as an act of victimization and unfair labour practice as he was elected as a Joint Secretary of the Trade Union and he was found actively involved in this Trade Union activity and was found espousing the causes of fellow workmen and hence, he was viewed with disfavour by the Management of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. It was therefore contended by the workman that, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, is only for victimizing him and to send a message across for the others not to get involved actively in Trade Union activities.

(2.) The charge-sheet dated 22.03.1985 drawn against the second respondent/workman reads as under:

(3.) At the domestic enquiry, the Management examined one Sri M. Ramesh Chander, Clerk and the workman has examined himself. The record of enquiry disclosed that the second respondent/workman remained absent from duty on all the days set out in the charge-sheet except 06.06.1984. The second respondent/workman has set forth the defense that, due to ill-health and Trade Union work, he was absent on the days noted in the charge-sheet except on 06.06.1984. However, the workman has assured that, he will be fair more careful henceforth.