The court confirmed the dismissal of the employee due to procedural flaws in the enquiry but found sufficient grounds that justified the dismissal based on substantive evidence.

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by the management of Palani Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited challenging the preliminary award dated 14.07.2022 and the final award dated 18.08.2023 passed in I.D.No.5/2009.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The respondent herein was employed as a driver in the petitioner Co-operative Society. He was placed under suspension on 23.02.2007 for the alleged misconduct of taking lorry to other district without permission of the Special Officer for certain illegal purposes. A charge memo was issued to him on 17.10.2007 for which he submitted his reply on 27.10.2007. Not being satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. After several hearings, the workman was said exparte. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 27.02.2008 wherein the workman was found guilty of the charges framed against him.

3.A second show cause notice was issued by the management on 08.03.2008 proposing to dismiss the employee. The workman has submitted his explanation on 14.03.2008. After considering explanation, an order of dismissal came to be passed on 21.04.2008. Challenging the order of dismissal, the workman had preferred I.D.No.5 of 2009. The Labour Court had passed a preliminary award to the effect that the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent management is not fair and proper. The said order has been issued on the following grounds:

a).No enquiry notice was sent to the workman intimating that the proceedings would be conducted on 18.01.2008 and 29.01.2008.

However, it has been recorded that the workman was absent.

b).Even for the hearing date 11.02.2008, no notice has been issued.

c).The workman had requested for appointment of an observer for the domestic enquiry proceedings. However, without considering the said request, the enquiry officer has dismissed the said application without proper reason. It has caused prejudice to the workman.

d).Under Ex.M16, the enquiry officer had denied the documents relating to Section 81 enquiry for the period of 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007.

e).Based upon the statement made by the management with respect to the document in custody of the management, the enquiry officer has proceeded to pass an order denying furnishing of those documents. The enquiry officer has not sent any reply to the workman over the requisition of documents.

f).Without considering the medical report of the workman, the enquiry officer has set exparte with an adverse remark that the criminal case is pending as against the workman. Therefore, he wantonly prolonging the enquiry proceedings.

g).No subsistence allowance was given to the workman since December 2007, January 2008 till March 2008 and therefore, the non payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the domestic enquiry shows that the workman was denied with the opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice.

h).Overall analysis of the enquiry proceedings show that the enquiry has been proceeded in a slip-shod manner and as a mere formality. Therefore, the workman was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard properly and to cross examine the concerned witnesses.

4.In view of the above said findings, the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry proceedings are vitiated and they have not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Labour Court had directed the management to let in evidence and posted the case to 05.08.2022.

5.While passing the final award on 18.08.2023, the Labour Court was pleased to set aside the punishment of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of serv