JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the management challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki dated 25.01.2013 in I.D No. 38 of 2007, whereby the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Management against the workman namely one Sasikumar belonging to the first respondent union was set aside. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Tribunal directed the Management to pay the workman an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, apart from his legally entitled terminal benefits but without any backwages.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the plantation industry in the State of Kerala. A workman namely Sri. Sasikumar was charge-sheeted under clause 22(h) of the standing orders applicable to the Staff Employees, which read thus: “22(h) “riotous or disorderly behaviour on the premises of the estate or any act subversive to discipline, in that, it is alleged that Sri. Sasikumar No. 5781, Ottaparai Division, cut Sri. Sekhar’s (No.5410) leg with a knife on 11th July, 2005 at about 7.45 a.m. causing serious injury to Sri. Sekhar.”

3. A domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the workman. The first respondent Union participated in the enquiry throughout and cross-examined the management witnesses; but the workman did not adduce any oral evidence. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, found the workman guilty of charges. Taking into account the gravity of misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 26.06.2006. Aggrieved by the punishment of dismissal, the first respondent Union raised an industrial dispute by filing a complaint to the Conciliation Officer and since the conciliation failed, a failure report was sent to the Government, which in turn, referred the following issue to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

“whether the dismissal of service of Sri. Sasikumar, PF No. 5781 by the Management of Letchmi Estate, Munnar is justifiable, if not what reliefs he is entitled to get?”

4. The Management as well as the Union entered appearance before the Tribunal and the Workman filed a claim statement disputing the propriety of the enquiry and also denying the charges, evident from Ext. P1 dated

04.01.2008 and consequentially claimed reinstatement.

5. A counter statement was filed by the management basically contending that the enquiry was conducted complying with the principles of natural justice and the said enquiry was legal, proper and valid, and that the findings entered into by the Enquiry Officer was based on evidence and the dismissal of the first respondent was after considering the gravity of misconduct, evident from Ext. P2. The enquiry file was produced before the Tribunal. However, the Enquiry Officer could not be examined, since he left the service of the management and his whereabouts were not known and thereupon, the enquiry was set aside and the management was given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence and accordingly, the management examined witnesses before the Tribunal. It was after considering the evidence let in by the management and other documentary evidence that the Industrial Tribunal had set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman, and the consequential orders were passed as is specified above. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the writ petition is preferred.

6. The incident leading to the issuance of chargesheet against the workman are as follows:

According to the Management witness No.1, the Deputy General Manager of the Estate, the incident occurred on 11.07.2005 at about 7.45 a.m., outside the muster ground, which was witnessed by MW2, the Assistant Field Officer of the Estate. The workman was given duty of weeding and Sri. Sekhar, the workman, who suffered injury, was given the duty of spraying. The workers, who go for the work of