JUDGMENT :

(S. Vaidyanathan, J.)

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2019 made in W.P.No.33610 of 2013.)

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2019 made in W.P.No.33610 of 2013, in and by which, the award of the Labour Court was interefered with, thereby justifying the act of the Management in terminating the Appellant herein from service. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant is before this Court.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as the “Workman” and the “Management” (Appellant & R1 respectively herein)

3. Brief facts of the case as put forth by the Workman:

i) The Workman, who was a Secretary of the Hindustan Lever Limited Tea Workers’ Welfare Union, was asked to participate in a meeting on 29.07.2009, in which one Sundaram, an Officer in charge of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) was threatening workers to increase the production of “Hassia Machine” and there was hue and cry. It was the Workman, who pacified all workers and requested to resume their duty and he also requested the said Officer to discuss all issues with the Union;

ii) On 03.08.2009, all of a sudden, the Workman was issued with an Enquiry Notice and a charge memo with false allegations and thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a report according to the wishes of the Management with a view to satisfy the Management without following the principles of natural justice;

iii) Though the Workman had submitted an explanation, the Management, without considering the same properly, based on the farce of an enquiry, imposed a major punishment of termination from service, which, according to the Workman, was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The alleged misconducts are that a) he barged into the shop floor, where the Production Manager and H.R.Executives were holding a meeting with the operators of Hassia Machine; b) he disrupted the meeting and started abusive language against the Executives and the Manager and scolded the Executive by name Sundaram in a filthy language and c) he also intimidated him by holding him by his shift collar, thereby created an unpleasant atmosphere;

iv) The Workman alleged that he was victimized for the trade union activities and the act of the Management is unfair labour practice and against the provisions of the Model Standing Order, especially Clause 39(c) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was not called upon to give any explanation and he was denied the opportunity to reply to the charge sheets;

v) Challenging the dismissal order, an Industrial Dispute was raised, which resulted in the Government of Puducherry to refer the dispute for adjudication and the same was taken up by the Labour Court in I.D.No.3 of 2011;

4. The stand of the Management before the Labour Court:

i) The Management took a stand that the Workman, a permanent employee, exhibited his aggressive, subversive and temperamental character and quarrelled with Officers of the industry and that he had suffered past punishment;

ii) It was stated that on 29.07.2009 around 1.00pm, the Workman, who was not in duty on the particular day, entered into the factory premises wanted to meet the HR Executive, that too, in her cabin and subsequently, he left the cabin and barged into the shop floor area without prior permission and misbehaved with the Executives and created restlessness in the factory, apart from scolding the Executive in filthy language and holding his shift collar. The behaviour of the Workman disrupted the normal operation of the factory and he was never invited by the Management for any discussion. The Executive, being hurt by the mishandle exhibited by the Workman, immediately lodged a complaint against the Workman, due to which, the Workman was suspended from service;

iii) After a detailed enquiry, it was established that the charges were proved against the Workman and therefore