Amount of compensation enhanced by writ court.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J., dated 4.12.1995 in W.P. No. 10503 of 1985, reversing the order passed by the 1st respondent/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 62 of 1983 awarding Rs. 3, 000/- by way of compensation in lieu of dismissal from service. The management is the appellant.

2. The appellant was engaged in the production of textile spinning machinery. It employs about 3, 000 workmen. The workmen have to work in two shifts. The various machines are operated at a very high speed and if they remain unattended, it may pose a very risk to the persons nearby as well as the machines. Having regard to the nature of machine operations and the risk factor involved, the workmen are required to maintain a constant vigil and also remain near their work place during the shift hours. Any workman who is found sleeping while on duty and who is away from his working place is invariably awarded the punishment of dismissal.

3. The 2nd respondent was offered employment as an Apprentice on 14.1.1970. Sub-clause 7 of Clause 24 of the Standing Order of the company provides that in awarding the punishment, the employer shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record of the workman and any other extenuating and aggravating circumstances that may exist. On 8.9.1981, the 2nd respondent was in the second shift. At about 10.30 P.M., while the shift in charge along with the Supervisor were going on rounds through the F.R.S. Department, they found the 2nd respondent sleeping, lying behind the E.M.A. High Frequency Hardening Machine Control Panel on a card-board sheet spread on the floor. The Supervisor Trainee was called to wake up the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent woke up, he felt sorry for having slept during duty hours and when he was asked to give his statement, he refused to own his mistake. On 9.9.1981, a show cause notice was issued to the 2nd respondent referring to his sleeping while on duty on 8.9.1981 and calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The 2nd respondent did not give any explanation. He was asked to appear for an enquiry on 21.9.1981. On 18.9.1981 he submitted an explanation in which he denied the charges. The enquiry was held an 8.1.1982, 12.1.1982 and 13.1.1982. In the enquiry, three witnesses by name Krishnamani, Kuthbudheen and Muralidharan were examined in support of the charges. The 2nd respondent examined two witnesses viz., Rajendran and Girinathan.

4. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 27.1.1982 holding that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved. It is also relevant to mention that even prior to the present misconduct on 8.9.1981, on several occasions the 2nd respondent was subjected to disciplinary action and in one instance, it resulted in his dismissal from service during July, 1976. Later, at the instance and intervention of some higher ups, the 2nd respondent and some other dismissed workmen were taken back. On a consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the past record of service of the 2nd respondent, the Executive Director took a decision to dismiss the 2nd respondent from service and the same was conveyed to the Personnel Manager, who issued a communication dated 12.2.1982 to that effect to the 2nd respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute challenging his dismissal. By order dated 22.3.1983 in G.O. Ms. No. 763, Labour and Employment Department, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, neither party let in any oral evidence. The 2nd respondent has marked Exs. W-1 to W-7 and the appellant marked Exs. M-1 to M-35 on their side. Before the Labour Court, the question whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, was taken up for consideration in the first instance. The Labour Court has held that due opportunity was given