The management is required to consider the employee's past record, as well as the gravity of the misconduct and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances, before imposing punishment.

N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed as a doffer in the first respondent/management company. According to him, he has put in a service of nearly 17 years without any blemish and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1350. 00 at the time of his dismissal from service. The first respondent company is a Spinning Mill, and in the mill, doffers used to attend the work of doffing and they are expected to work as a group, each group consisting of nearly 5 or 6 doffers. By nature of things, it is necessary that all of them should contribute to the production to achieve the desired result, and in effect, the doffing work is a collective work. The petitioner has stated that one Thirumalainambi, who was also a doffer had not done the work properly and in spite of the petitioner informing him that he should extend his full cooperation, the said Thirumalainambi never bothered to do the work. On April 28, 1987 at about 5. 30 a. m. there was a break for the third shift work. The petitioner, the said Thirumalainambi and also some other workers who were working as a group during third shift, at the time of break, were talking about the conduct of Thirumalainambi. According to the petitioner, Thirumalainambi, instead of taking the advice from the writ petitioner, got enraged and abused in filthy language the petitioner and the family members of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he was provoked by the obscene and filthy language and in spite of the warning of the petitioner, the said Thirumalainambi continued to abuse the petitioner. The petitioner enraged at that, beat him with i chappal lying there. Thirumalainambi gave a i complaint on April 28, 1987 and another i worker also gave a report on April 28, 1987. The petitioner also gave a complaint on April 29, 1987 and in the complaint the petitioner has stated that Thirumalainambi used abusive and obscene language. The first respondent management issued a charge memo to the petitioner on the basis of the complaint given by Thirumalainambi. Thirumalainambi also gave a criminal complaint and the same was taken on file in C. C. No. 56 of 1988 and the criminal Court dismissed the complaint on april 17, 1989. The management on the basis of the charge memo dated April 29, 1987, conducted a domestic enquiry. A show-cause notice was issued by the first respondent management to the petitioner. The petitioner had admitted that he has beaten Thirumalainambi with chappal and he has stated that he felt very sorry about the incident and he assured that similar incident would not recur in future. The management did not accept the explanation given by the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted, and in the enquiry, Thirumalainambi was examined and he deposed that the petitioner had beaten him with chappal. One Rajapandi also corroborated the statement of Thirumalainambi. The petitioner also gave a statement before the enquiry officer, and the enquiry officer found that there is evidence to establish that the petitioner had beaten Thirumalainambi with chappal on his head and the charge was proved. The first respondent management accepted the report of the enquiry officer and passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

( 2 ) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred to the labour Court, Madurai. Before the Labour court, the petitioner has stated that the order of dismissal was not legally valid as no second show-cause notice was issued and the order of dismissal was passed without taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner. The management in the counter statement filed before the Labour Court stated that the petitioner has not done any extraordinary work and he was doing only the work which was expected from an ordinary worker and the labour work done by him was done like an ordinary worker and the case of the management was that on the basis of the past record of service as well as the grave nature of the