- (1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment in W. P. No. 7315 of 1975, which in turn confirmed the order of the Additional Labour Court, Madras, in I. D. No. 95 of 1974, dated 30th June, 1975, holding that the dismissal of two workmen named Ambalavanan and Muralidharan by the first respondent - Management of Engine Valves Limited, Madras, was correct. First respondent charge-sheeted these two persons under Exhibits M-2 and M-3, dated 19th March, 1974, stating that the worker by name P. Shankar had reported to them under exhibit M-1, dated 18th March, 1974, that at about 5. 25 p. m. on 15th March, 1974, they assaulted him for having given overproduction, at a place nearly one kilometer away from the respondent - company, and hence clause 16 (h) and 16 (t) of the Standing Orders of the Company had been violated. They submitted their explanations under Exhibit M-4 and M-5 claiming that at about 5. 40 p. m. on that day, they were discussing with the other workmen in the factory itself regarding the talks going on with the Management. A domestic enquiry was conducted, in which the Management examined 6 witness and the workmen examined 9 witnesses, and the Enquiry Officer in his finding under Exhibit M-9, dated 10th April, 1974, held that the workmen were guilty of misconduct falling under the later part of clause 16 (t) of the Standing Order, it being commission of service act of misconduct viz. , an act subversive of discipline. First respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as Management) passed orders of dismissal under Exhibit M-13 and M-14, dated 23rd April, 1974. Aggrieved against the said order, the Union raised an industrial dispute, which in true resulted in the dispute being referred by government so second respondent, who passed the award on 30th June, 1975.
(2.) MR. N. G. R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the Labour Court has misunderstood the law applicable to the reference made to it, and there being a failure to invoke. S. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award being illegal, the learned Judge ought to have remitted the matter of proper disposal. He would further state that there being a misreading of the evidence on record, any attempt made to render a finding on the alleged misconduct, should have been taken note of by the learned Judge, and there being patent errors committed, the appellant is entitled to the relief, as prayed for.
(3.) MR. M. R. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for Management, would submit that when appellant at no point of time, till the filing of the writ petition, having invoked S. 11a, the Labour Court suo motu cannot be expected to apply it. In spite of whatever the Labour Court might have observed in para 12 of its order pertaining to its jurisdiction, since it had dealt with the evidence on record and found that the order of dismissal is justified, appellant can no longer of plead about any misreading of evidence by it. Learned Single Judge has also carefully gone through the evidence and found no valid ground existing for holding that the dismissal was not justified. When there is absence of pleading, rested on S. 11a, appellant cannot make it a ground for the matter being remitted.;