Factual findings of the Labour Court cannot be dislodged unless there is a jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or error apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the first respondent herein in I.D.No.247/2003 and to quash its award dated 10.10.2008.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records from the file of the first respondent herein in I.D.No.247/2003 and to quash its award dated 10.10.2008.

2. The Management will be referred to as the petitioner and the second respondent will be referred to as the respondent.

3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Automobile components. The respondent was appointed as a labourer on 01.09.1988. From 1998 there was heavy recession in the industry and therefore the Management resorted to various measures like introducing voluntary retirement scheme and also re-allocation of work etc. The respondent as a measure of re-allocation was transferred from F.P.S. Section to Machine Shop as per the terms of the settlement dated 19.02.2000 entered into with the Union. On 12.01.2002, the respondent went to the factory to submit the ESI fitness certificate along with the leave application to the Personnel Department. At around 02.15 p.m. the respondent entered into the Personnel Department where a group discussion with respect to some matters was going on. The respondent without any provocation suddenly raised his voice against one Hariharan (MW1). The said Hariharan on seeing the unruly behaviour of the respondent went to his cabin, but the respondent followed him and started quarrelling with him. The respondent pushed the chair menacingly against Hariharan with an intention to assault him and shouted at him in derogatory language. Mr.Hariharan and the Senior Executive of the Personnel Department Mr.J.Purushothaman gave a complaint on the incident to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore issued an order of suspension on 17.01.2002 to the respondent. The respondent gave his explanation to the charge sheet on 01.02.2002 and as his explanation was unsatisfactory a domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 20.06.2002 which was given to the respondent on 20.06.2002. The respondent submitted his comments to the enquiry report on 06.07.2002. On receipt of the respondent's comments a second show cause notice was issued to him to show cause on the punishment to be imposed on him. The respondent submitted his reply on 30.07.2002, and thereafter the petitioner considering the gravity of the misconduct dismissed the respondent from service vide order dated 20.08.2002 with retrospective effect from the date of suspension i.e. 07.01.2002. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was numbered as I.D.No.247 of 2003 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its preliminary order dated 05.04.2007 found that the enquiry was not properly conducted by the petitioner and so permitted the petitioner to lead evidence before it to establish the charges. Before the Labour Court both the parties let in evidence, both orally as well as documentary. The respondent examined himself as WW1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W15 and the petitioner examined two witnesses viz., Mr.Hariharan and Mr.J.Purushothaman and marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M6 including the charge sheet, explanation and the complaint. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record and on the basis of the arguments of the learned counsel held that the respondent was not guilty of the charges and therefore directed the petitioner to reinstate him with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

4. It is the respondent's case that the order of dismissal was an act of victimisation and therefore the same cannot be sustained. According to the respondent, on 06.04.1999, the respondent was ask