The fairness of the domestic enquiry and the seriousness of the charges are crucial in justifying the punishment imposed by the employer.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in award passed in I.D.No.220/2010 dated 03.10.2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to quash the Award passed in I.D.No.220 of 2010, dated 03.10.2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2. The averments in the writ petition is that the petitioner, who was appointed as an Administrative Assistant on 26.10.2001, was made as a permanent workman of the Student Nurses Hostel on 31.10.2003, which is being run by the 1st respondent Management. Due to ulterior motive of his superiors, the petitioner was victimised with false allegations and memos. Therefore, the respondent Management had issued a charge memo, dated 01.02.2007 and placed the petitioner under suspension.

3. Denying the charges levelled against him, the petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 26.02.2007. Pursuant to the same, a domestic enquiry was also conducted and the respondent Management issued a second show cause notice dated 05.06.2007, for which the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 22.06.2007. Without considering the said explanation, the respondent Management had dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 05.11.2007.

4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Vellore and since the Conciliation ended in failure, the Labour Officer had filed the failure report. In continuance of the above, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, Vellore and filed a petition under Section 2 A(2) of the I.D.Act 1947 to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

5. The charges levelled against the petitioner would read that (a) while on duty after 11.45 am, he did not return till 5.00 p.m. (b) absented from duty without prior intimation and caused huge dislocation of work (c) absconded from duty for 25 days. (d) had acquaintance and friendship with lady employees and students (e) left the workspot without intimation to higher authorities (f) caused huge dislocation of work in the hostel and mess (g) quality and quantity of work is very poor and slip shod behaviour (h) pre-occupied with family problems and found quarrelsome, non cooperative and non productive. (i) provocating colleagues and other employees resulting undesirable incidents.

6. For the above said charges, petitioner given his explanation. Enquiry was held; employee participated in the enquiry; on the side of Management, 4 witnesses were examined, but employee did not cross examine them and the employee has not examined any defence witness. The enquiry officer, after analysing the evidence and on examining the exhibits, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and found him guilty of charges.

7. On the basis of the enquiry officer report, the respondent management considering the gravity of the charges framed against the petitioner, terminated him from service. The petitioner''s challenge to the said punishment, was rejected by the Labour Court, Vellore. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent Management had conducted the domestic enquiry without following any rules and regulations and also without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses on the side of the 1st respondent Management, concluded the enquiry holding the charges against the petitioner as ''proved''.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner subm