MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPER MILLS Vs. WORKMEN OF TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPER MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 247/1991, dated 17. 2. 2000, while Writ Appeal No. 838/2000 has been filed by the Management, Writ Appeal No. 335/2001 is filed by the Workmen Association.

(2.) ONE V. Subramanian was employed as an Equipment Operator in the Management. On the allegation that he had assaulted one R. Kalyanasundaram, server in the TNPL Staff mess, on December 8, 1984 at about 8. 00 a. m. and based on the complaint of the said R. Kalyanasundaram, a charge memo was issued to the said V. Subramanian. Thereupon, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the delinquent Officer V. Subramanian, the management has conducted enquiry, by appointing a retired District Judge as the enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Management has examined four witnesses as M. Ws. 1 to 4 and on behalf of the workman, three witnesses were examined as W. Ws. 1 to 3. Further, on behalf of the Management, four documents were marked as Exhibits M-1 to m-4, but no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman. The enquiry Officer, found the delinquent guilty of the charge, following which the Management has imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, an Industrial Dispute was raised by the workers Association before the labour Court and since the Labour Court also found the delinquent guilty of the charges and dismissed the industrial dispute, Writ Petition no. 247/1991 was filed by the Workmen association.

(3.) THE learned single Judge, by the order dated 17. 2. 2000, has observed that the Labour court has not addressed itself to all the questions and that the matter should be decided by the Labour Court as to whether the assault on kalyanasundaram by the delinquent would attract clause 16 (t) of the Model Standing orders and whether the canteen can be regarded as a part of the establishment of the management and whether Kalayanasundaram can be regarded as a workman of the management and what are the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders that would be applicable to cover the alleged misconduct of the delinquent and that the Management in the order of termination has not specified whether they have taken into account the previous record of the workman and what was the nature of the previous record and whether there are any extenuating or aggravating circumstances present, before passing the order of termination. On such grounds, the learned Judge, while setting aside the Award of the Labour Court, has remitted the matter back to the Labour Court to consider the question as to whether the order of termination is justifiable or can be sustained. This order of the learned single is under challenge by both the Management and the workers Union, by way of these writ appeals.