DR REDDYS LABORATAOTIES LTD HYDERABAD Vs. PRISIDING OFFICER ADDTIONAL INDURSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM ADDTIONAL LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 953 of 2000 is filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as "the Company") challenging the award dated 07-10-1999 in I.D. No. 173 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as "the Tribunal"). W.P. No. 7800 of 2001 is filed by a workman D. Ramakrishnam Raju of the above Company (the petitioner in W.P. No. 953 of 2000) challenging the same award insofar as the Tribunal had directed withholding of four annual increments and denied backwages to him. The facts leading to the above writ petitions are as under:

(2.) The workman thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contending that he was an active member of the union and was instrumental in organizing workmen of the Company to secure better conditions of service and increase of wages, that therefore, the Management of the Company bore grudge against him and was waiting for an opportunity to terminate his services on one pretext or other and tried to implicate him in criminal case on the alleged charges of assaulting General Manager (Personnel), that he was acquitted in the said case, that the management had once again made an attempt to eliminate him and issued charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated 03-03-1993 with false and baseless allegations, that the enquiry officer who conducted enquiry with reference to the said charge sheet had a pre-determined mind and acted in haste and that he had never left the work spot and therefore, the question of riotous disorderly behavior, threatening, abusing or assaulting any superior or co-worker does not arise. Therefore, he sought the intervention of the Tribunal to set aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him and prayed for reinstatement of backwages. The said petition was numbered as I.D. No. 173 of 1996 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal.

(3.) The Management of the Company filed a counter contending that the workman had unauthorisedly left his place of work, approached the Security Supervisor and started repeatedly abusing him in filthy language and threatening him and that therefore a charge sheet was issued to the workman and also another workman by name K.L.P. Raju who also was reported to have committed similar acts of misconduct on the same day, that the domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer had found this workman and the other workman K.L.N. Raju guilty of acts of misconduct alleged against him, that the enquiry was held to be valid and proper by the order of the Tribunal dated 09-09-1997 and therefore, no relief should be given to the workman.