ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in and by which the dismissal of the workman was confirmed, but a lumpsum compensation was awarded, while the Management had assailed the order of lumpsum compensation, the workman has assailed the dismissal from service by filing the respective writ petitions.

2. The workman joined the service of the Management on 18.2.2010 and had enrolled himself to be a member of the Union. On and from 20.12.2013, the workers went on strike for nearly four months and the workers resumed work on 23.4.2014 upon intervention of the Labour Department. Thereafter, the persons, who were instrumental in the strike were proceeded with departmentally. Thereafter, by order dated 25.9.2014, the workman was suspended and a charge memo dated 26.9.2014 was issued alleging that on 23.9.2014, when the workman was on duty, he had sabotaged the conveyor belt was damaged due to the act of the workman, which was wantonly done. The workman submitted his explanation dated 9.10.2014 and not being satisfied, domestic enquiry was conducted. After affording opportunity and upon inspection of the work spot, the enquiry officer concluded his enquiry on 21.02.201