LAWS(APH)-2014-7-8

M.V. SESHACHARY Vs. MADRAS FERTILIZERS LIMITED

Decided On July 04, 2014
M.V. Seshachary Appellant
V/S
MADRAS FERTILIZERS LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ appeals are filed by the same appellant being aggrieved by the common order dated 29 -01 -2013, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.14936 of 2006 and 17819 of 2007.

(2.) THE appellant joined the service of M/s Madras Fertilizers Limited, the 1st respondent herein, as Assistant on 22 -01 -1990. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 01 -40 -1995. The appointing authority placed the appellant under suspension through order dated 18 -02 -2004. This was followed by a charge -sheet dated 09 -03 -2004, wherein seven charges were levelled against the appellant. He was required to submit explanation within two days. Aggrieved by that, he filed Wrweit Petition No. 4966 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage granting a weeks time to submit the explanation.

(3.) THE appellant approached the Labour Court -cum - Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 2 -A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) by filing LCID No. 215 of 2004, assailing the order of dismissal. After contest by the parties, the Labour Court passed Award dated 16 -01 -2006, substituting the punishment of reduction of pay scale by two stages. While the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2006 challenging the Award insofar as it has set aside the order of dismissal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2007, feeling aggrieved by the modified punishment imposed by the Labour Court. Through the order under appeals, the learned single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 14936 of 2006 and dismissed Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2007. Hence, these two writ appeals. Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the charges framed by the respondents against the appellant are so frivolous, that the management itself represented before the learned single Judge that there is no strength in as many as four charges. He contends that the Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion and recorded a finding to the effect that the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are not well founded. He submits that the power conferred upon the Labour Court, under Section 11 -A of the Act is wide enough, and even if the Labour Court agrees with the findings as to misconduct in a domestic enquiry, a punishment of lesser degree can be imposed by it. He further submits that the very approach of the learned single Judge, to the scope of Section 11 -A of the Act, does not accord with the settled principles of law and that the discretion of the Labour Court was almost reduced to the level of non -existence.