MANAGEMENT OF THANJAVUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been tiled by the management, which was arrayed as first respondent in W. P. No. 5846 of 1989, against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 13, 1991, whereunder the learned single Judge while sustaining the claim of the workers, ordered relief (sic) in the following terms: "as I am setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is not valid and remanding the matter to the Labour Court for the purpose stated above, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed, the order challenged in this writ petition is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Labour Court to enable the parties to lead evidence with regard to the charges framed against the petitioners and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter according to law within 4 months from today. The Labour Court is also directed to decide the question whether the petitioners are entitled to wages from the date of dismissal of the petitioners till the final award of the "labour Court according to law, in the event of the Labour Court ultimately upholding the dismissal of the petitioners on the basis of the evidence to be let in pursuant to the order in this writ petition. No costs. "

(2.) HAVING regard to the nature of disposal the appeal deserves, it is unnecessary to delve at length the entire gamut of facts, which in our view, has been adverted to the required extent by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal. In respect of the incident which was said to have taken place on August 15, 1980, the appellant appears to have served separate charge memos on respondents 2 to 4. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, apart from the common charges, an additional charge that they jumped into the power house and attempted to cause damage to the switch board was also framed. The workers denied the charges and took the stand that they did not report to work as per the decision taken by the Union. Not satisfied, the management ordered that a domestic enquiry has to be conducted appointing one J. R. Sachidanandam, Advocate as enquiry officer. After the completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against respondents 2 and 3 stood proved and findings on that basis appear to have been submitted on October 24, 1980. so far as the charge against the 4th respondent is concerned, the finding about the proof of the same also appears to have been submitted on October 25, 1980. After issuing separate second show cause notice, dated October 31, 1980, to which workers offered explanation, the appellant management passed separate orders on November 24, 1980 dismissing respondents 2 to 4 workmen from the service of the appellant -Mills. Aggrieved, the Union -Thanjai Noorpalai Thozhilalargal Sangam raised an industrial dispute relating to the nonemployment of the workers. The matter was ultimately referred to the first respondent by the State Government, which entertained the proceedings as I. D. No. 417 of 1981. The first respondent - Labour Court after enquiry and trial, in which exhibits were marked by the Management, passed an award in the following terms: "in the result, an award is passed dismissing the I. D. holding as follows: The reference to this Court made by the Government of Tamil Nadu over the non employment of the workers B. Purushothaman and K. P. Natarajan and T. S. Anbu is not valid and proper. The non-employment of the workers B. Purushothaman and K. P. Natarajan is justified in view of the serious misconduct committed by them on August 15, 1980. The worker Anbu is not entitled to any relief inspite of the fact that his non-employment is not a justified one, since the reference to this Court made by the Government of Tamil Nadu over his non-employment is not valid and proper. No costs. "

(3.) IT may be noticed at this stage that earlier to the stage of enquiry and final award passed, preliminary objections were taken in a number of disputes including the one in I. D. No. 417 of 1981. It appears that the first respondent - Labour Court has passed an order on the preliminary points on August 8, 1985 holding that the domestic enquiry against the workmen concerned are not in any way vitiated. So far as the preliminary objection relating to the competency of the enquiry officer was concerned, that was relegated to the stage of the final award. Ultimately, as noticed supra, a final award also came to be passed on April 28, 1988. Aggrieved, the workers filed W. P. No. 5846 of 1989 seeking for a writ of certiorarifed mandamus to call for and quash the award passed in I. D. No. 417 of 1981 and consequently direct the appellant -Management to reinstate the workmen with back wages and other attendant benefits. The management opposed the claim before the learned single Judge.