Chennai: A dismissed welder took on a major automobile company and won a reinstatement order by highlighting discrepancies in the company’s claim that he damaged a brass connector and caused production halt of seven minutes in Nov 2016.
It all began when B Pazhani was accused of two charges by Unipres India. The first charge stemmed from an incident in Nov 2016, wherein the worker allegedly damaged a brass connector by not following proper working procedures.
This incident led to a production halt for seven minutes (from 11.25am to 11.32am), and the company issued a show cause notice, deeming the worker’s actions as serious misconduct.
Also read: Dr. Tanaya Mishra joins ISG (In-Solutions Global) as Global CHRO
The second charge related to a claim that on Dec 1, 2016, the worker was involved in slow production, producing only 400 units against a target of 800, and submitting a false production report to conceal the shortfall. A chargesheet was issued in Feb 2017, and the company conducted domestic inquiries into both charges, which were led by an independent inquiry officer.
The inquiries, which lasted several months, concluded that the charges were proven, leading to Palani’s dismissal in Dec 2017. Unipres India subsequently filed a petition with the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval of the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The tribunal found several flaws in the company’s case. For the first charge, Unipres India failed to provide concrete evidence that the worker didn’t follow proper procedures, and crucial maintenance records were missing, leaving the charge unsubstantiated. In the second charge of slow production, the tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the claim, including no performance comparisons with other workers or proof that the 0.6 tact time standard was realistic.
The tribunal also identified procedural lapses in the company’s internal inquiry, noting that the inquiry officer ignored key evidence and displayed bias in the findings. The tribunal on Aug 8 concluded that the worker’s dismissal was unjustified and ordered his reinstatement.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
