O R D E R

The trade union is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Labour Court, whereby, the claim of the petitioner – Union was rejected.

2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a registered trade union espousing the cause of the workmen, who were illegally dismissed from service, raised an industrial dispute upon failure of the conciliation, the Government vide order dated 02.05.2001 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. That the respondent – management is an engineering industry having employed several workmen and that the union is called “the Engineering and General Workers Union” affiliated to AITUC during the year 1980. That the union had placed charter of demands on 03.11.1983, respondent –management did not respond to the demands placed by the union and in the said circumstances, the union had to take the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking intervention of the authority, union approached the conciliation officer, and the conciliation officer called upon the parties to appear before the conciliation officer.

3. Further, the respondent – management did not like the employees joining the union and that the respondent-management induced small group of workmen from amongst the total work force to form another union styled as “Lakshmana Isola Employees Union”, the new union furnished the list of office bearers to the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions indicating the names of the members of that union and office bearers. The newly formed union Lakshmana Isola Employees Union (“LIEU” for short) placed new charter of demands on 12.01.1984 which ended in settlement on 20.01.1984 after negotiations were held between the union and the management. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-union was unaware about the settlement signed by the management with the LIEU Union. After coming to know, a protest letter was given to the management and the union addressed a letter signed by as many as 29 workmen.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent –

management decided to victimise the active members, office bearers and the executive committee members of the union by initiating disciplinary proceedings on the false and frivolous charges and charge sheet was issued, the enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and held the charges levelled against the employees were proved, the disciplinary authority accepted the report and on the question of imposition of punishment arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against employees of the petitioner- union are proved and imposed punishment of dismissal. According to the petitioner, the action on the part of respondent-management in dismissing 13 workmen from the services of the company is a clear case of victimisation and unfair labour practice and raised dispute, Government referred the matter for adjudication before the labour Court.

5. Claim statement was filed, inter alia, contending that the ground of victimisation and unfair labour practice on part of the management and that the enquiry conducted by the respondent – management was not fair and proper. 6. The management appeared and filed counter statement, inter alia, contending that the first party workmen and seven others have committed serious misconduct and they have been charge sheeted on 14.08.1984 for having indulged in quarrelling with the rival group and serious charges of beating and attacking the watchman who was on duty and as per the standing orders of the company the misconduct been riotous and disorderly behaviour, subversive of discipline, intimating or interfering with in anyway with the workmen of the company, assaulting, beating, threatening intimating the other workmen and the enquiry officer having conducted the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice by providing sufficient opportunity to the first party – workmen has held that the charges levelled against the first party was proved. The Disciplinar