ORDER.— This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records in Industrial Dispute No. 33 of 1975 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras and quashing the order dated 24th March, 1976 passed therein.

2. The petitioner was employed as a storekeeper of the first respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli having entered service as stores assistant in 1966. According to the petitioner, on 21st June, 1973, when he was coming out of the factory of the first respondent, his cycle was checked by the Sainik (Watchman) and he was taken to the Sainik’s room. It was alleged that a brass-screw, I’ in length and weighing about 1.2 kg. was removed from his cycle, where it had been kept wrapped in a khaki cloth. The petitioner was taken by the Sainik to the Jamadar and his statement was recorded In the statement he had admitted that fee rod was found in the khaki cloth and had stated that it was not however known how it came to be placed on his cycle. It was his case in that statement that the rod had been planted on the cycle by someone else. A charge memo, was issued on 18th July, 1973 stating that he had committed misconduct as per clauses (iii), (xxiii), (xxx) and (xxxv) of Standing Order 46 in the Standing Orders Exhibit M-14 and he was suspended on that date. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 19th July, 1973 saying inter alia that there was no evidence to show that the rod was recovered from his possession. It may be stated at this stage that the petitioner had not stated anything in his explanation about his earlier statement recorded on 21st June, 1973 soon after he was taken by the Sainik to the Jamadar. Subsequently, an enquiry was held and two sainiks were examined on the side of the management and three witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner herein. The enquiry officer, the Plant Engineer of the Management, found in his report Exhibit M-5, that the charge was proved. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10th September, 1973 and he submitted his reply, Exhibit M-8 saying inter alia that it had not been established in the enquiry that the rod belonged to the first respondent. He had taken this stand regarding the ownership of the rod even in his first appeal memo. Exhibit M-10. However, the same Plant Engineer, who held the enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service by his order Exhibit M-9 dated 26th October, 1973. As provided by the service rules, the petitioner filed an appeal under Exhibit M-10 to the first appellate authority viz., the Deputy Superintendent, Mechanical Division, on 12th November, 1973 and it was dismissed by the order, Exhibit M-11 dated 3rd January, 1974. The petitioner further appealed as per Exhibit M-12 dated 17th January, 1974 to the Superintendent, Production Fertilizer, who dismissed the same by his order Exhibit M-13 dated 1st February,1974. Subsequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging inter alia in his claim statement that the statement dated 21st June, 1973 was obtained by coercion and that he was not furnished with a copy of the sainik’s report to the management. The petitioner further contended that the Plant Engineer who passed the order of dismissal. Exhibit M-9 was not the competent authority and that the order is therefore invalid.

3. The first respondent contended in the counter-statement before the Labour Court that the petitioner was found to be in unauthorised possession of a brass screw one foot in length and weighing about 1.2 kgs. rolled in a khaki cloth and kept in the carrier of his cycle and he had voluntarily given a statement on the same date to the security personnel admitting his possession of the brass-screw covered in a khaki cloth. It is further stated in the counter-statement that the petitioner had been given all opportuniti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document