S MADHAV RAO Vs. HONBLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a workman, working as Electrician in the 2nd respondent-Jubilee Hills International Centre, Hyderabad. He was placed under suspension on certain allegations by an order dated 20-09-2009. It appears that similar action was taken against several other employees. The Employees Union raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 7 of 2010 against the orders suspending its members on the ground that the President of the Organization has no such power. In the meanwhile, enquiry was held after a charge-sheet dated 25-09-2009 was issued to the petitioner and he was found guilty. A show cause notice dated 14-11-2010 was thereupon issued to him seeking explanation as to why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed. It appears that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20-11-2010. Since the dispute raised by the Employees Union was still pending, the 2nd respondent sought permission of the Industrial Tribunal to dismiss the petitioner from service as required under Section 33 (3)(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 by filing a petition M.P. No. 4 of 2011. The petition was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against him was not legal and valid. According to him, he was denied the assistance of a co-employee and thus the enquiry against him was in violation of Clause-38 of the Jubilee Hills International Centre Standing Orders and principles of natural justice. The said contention did not find favour with the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the enquiry as valid and held that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It is against the said order, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is entitled for assistance of a co-employee as a matter of right as per Clause-38 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner in exercise of his right sought the assistance of one Sri K.V.S. Ramachandra Rao. The 2nd Respondent-Management refused the permission to avail his assistance on the untenable ground that he himself was likely to face disciplinary action for absconding unauthorizedly from duties. The learned counsel, relying on Clause-38 of the Standing Orders, would submit that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of assistance and thus the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated.

(3.) Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent, would submit that though the assistance of a co-employee was not extended to the petitioner, since the named employee was not available as he was absconding from duty, an option was given to the petitioner to take the assistance of any other co-employee. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity.