The Labour Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without valid reason, and serious misconduct justifies removal from service.

G. Chockalingam, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the allowing of the writ petition in W.P.No.1264 of 2009, dated 24.11.2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts, which are relevant for consideration of this appeal, are as follows:

The Appellant/workman was appointed as a Fitter on 7.7.1993 in the second respondent Management and was confirmed in the post of Operator on 30.6.1994. He was entrusted to do the jobs of turning, drilling and grinding. While so, as there was not much work in Plant III Unit, where the appellant was employed, the Management, instead of laying off all the employees, put the appellant and others on compulsory wait, paying them full salary for 7½ months and then employed them in the other division at Gummidipoondi. Thereafter, Tripartite Settlement vide Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, dated 9.8.2001 was arrived at for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. As per Clause 6 of the settlement, the Management is at liberty to refuse or extend the benefits to certain employees and the workmen agreed to co-operate with the Management in eliminating all restrictive and wasteful practices in any form, idle time and for fullest utilisation of the existing manpower and resources to reach maximum production subject to normal circumstances and facilities made available to the workmen. As the appellant deliberately refused to work resulting in reduction of the production target, the Management cut his wages and for certain misconduct committed by him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charges were framed on 13.12.2002 and 17.02.2003, respectively. A separate domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of two charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the appellant guilty of the misconduct.

3. The appellant was issued with second show cause notice on 17.02.2003, to which, he submitted his explanation on 19.02.2003. As the explanation submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory and as the misconduct committed by him was serious in nature, he was removed from service. Challenging his removal from service, the appellant raised a dispute in I.D.No.433 of 2004 before the first respondent/Labour Court. The first respondent herein, by an order dated 18.06.2008, held that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, however, found the charges levelled against the appellant are superficial in nature and allowed I.D.No.433 of 2004, by ordering reinstatement of the appellant with backwages and other monetary benefits. Challenging the said order passed by the first respondent/Labour Court, the Management filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1264 of 2009 before this Court. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 24.11.2010 and set aside the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court dated 18.06.2008 permitting the Management to withdraw the amount, if any, representing the arrears of salary deposited to the credit of I.D.No.433 of 2004 on the file of the first respondent herein. Challenging the said order, the appellant is before this Court by way of the above writ appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/workman would strenuously contend that though the Management admitted that the appellant herein has tendered his reply to the show cause notices issued to him on 06.01.2003 and 19.02.2003, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the same. He would further contend that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the findings of the Labour Court that there was no previous proceedings initiated or pending against the appellant by the Management from his date of joining the service i.e., 08.07.1993 till 06.03.2002. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/workman that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the transfer order was pre-determined with mala fide intention to wreck vengeance on the appe