The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving charges, complying with principles of natural justice, and adhering to legal requirements in the enquiry process and service of notice to workmen.

Heard the arguments of Mr. Karthik, learned counsel representing M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co. and appearing for the Management and Mr. Balan Haridass, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae for the unrepresented workmen and perused the records filed by the parties as well as the original records summoned from the first respondent Labour Court.

2. W.P. No. 6196 of 1998 is filed by the Management against the common Award dated 18. 1997 made in I.D. No. 531 of 1989 (S. Marudupandian) and I.D. No. 533 of 1989

(S. Gunasekaran). In I.D. No. 531 of 1989, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of workman Marudupandian with continuity of service and backwages. In I.D. No. 533 of 1989, in respect of workman S. Gunasekaran, he was given the relief of compensation of a sum of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

3. W.P. No. 6197 of 1998 is filed by the Management against the preliminary order dated 07. 1993 made in I.D. No. 533 of 1989 wherein the enquiry conducted by the Management was found to be vitiated and opposed to the principles of natural justice.

4. W.P. No. 8149 of 1998 was directed against the preliminary order dated 07. 1993 made in I.D. No. 531 of 1989 in which the Labour Court held that the enquiry held against the workman Marudupandian, was vitiated. The Management at that time itself filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 2735 of 1994 challenging the said order and this Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 25.02.1994 holding that such challenge without the trial being completed, was not maintainable.

5. An interim stay was granted by this Court on 24. 1998 against the enforcement of the Award and since the workmen were not represented, the stay was also made absolute on 20.12.2002.

6. Even after the matters were listed for final hearing as the workers were not represented by counsel, Mr. Balan Haridass, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae vide order of this Court dated 14. 2008. He had readily agreed to represent the case of the workmen. This Court places on record the valuable assistance supported by legal precedents rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

7. Before the Labour Court, a counter statement was filed by the petitioner Management and in paragraph 15, the Management sought for liberty to adduce fresh evidence in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated. The Labour Court, by its order dated 07. 1993, came to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated. Thereafter, before the Labour Court, the two industrial disputes were tried together and on the side of the workmen, Marudupandian was examined as W.W.1 and on the side of the Management, 5 witnesses were examined as M.W.1 to M.W.5. While 13 documents were filed on the side of the workmen and marked as Exs. W.1 to W.13, on the side of the Management, 36 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.36.

8. The Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the charges were not established. It held that the complaint Ex.

2.M.2 was given by one Chandramouli against the workmen and he was not examined. Even though it was claimed that the said Chandramouli had resigned, the Court held that he could have been summoned through Court summons. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the Charge No. 4 was not proved. Likewise, in Ex. M.3, the date of incident had not been mentioned and no statements were obtained from the lorry agent Subramanian and he was also not examined before the Court and, therefore, it rejected the basis of Ex. M.3. It also held that though for the charge under Ex. M.8, the basic document was Ex. M.1, the complainants M/s Pandiyarajan and Jayachandran were not examined before the Court. It, therefore, held that the said charge was also not proved.

9. With reference to the fourth charge, the basic report was Ex. M.10 signed by one Ramasamy, the then General Manager was also not examined and hence, the said charge was held no