IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.24031 of 2001 The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Madurai Division II) Ltd., 19, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Vannarpettai (P.O.,) Tirunelveli 627 003. ... Petitioner Vs 1.P.Suyamburaj 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. ...Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records connected with the Award dated 31.01.2001 passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.45 of 1995 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.Kala Ramesh For R1 : Mr.C.Manohar O R D E R
The petitioner is a State Owned Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.45 of 1995 dated 31.01.2001, the present writ petition has been filed. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed re-instatement of the first respondent workman with service continuity but without backwages.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 07.12.2001 and an order of interim stay of the Award was granted. Subsequently, on a vacate state application being filed by the first respondent, the interim applications were dismissed by a common order dated 01.04.2002. The petitioner Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the first respondent and also pay the last drawn wages of Rs.2,988/- commencing from April 2002 every month in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 till the disposal of the writ petition. Liberty was also given to the Corporation to restore him to service, if necessary.
3. It must be noted that even at the time of filing the vacate stay application, the workman was said to be 50 years old and even if he would have reinstated, by now he would have reached the age of superannuation. There is no complaint from the workman that the interim order passed by this Court was not complied with.
4. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned Award are as follows:-
The petitioner was working as a Driver attached to the Thisayanvilai Branch of the petitioner Corporation. He was suspended on 30.07.1994. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 04.08.1994 was given to him. The charge against the first respondent was that on 28.07.1994, he came to the department in a drunken condition and went inside the office and abused the Assistant in a vulgar language. He prevented the workers from discharging their duty and brought dis-reputation to the Corporation. The first respondent gave a reply dated 11.08.1994 stating that he is an active member of the trade union affiliated to the DMK and one of the complainant David Joseph belong to rival INTUC. Because he has left INTUC and joined the DMK union, a false complaint was made against him. Not satisfied with the explanation an enquiry was directed to be conducted. In the enquiry two witnesses were examined and the first respondent also gave evidence. The enquiry Officer by a report dated 22.07.1994 held that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, a second show cause was given to the first respondent dated 30.09.1994. The first respondent gave his explanation dated 18.10.1994. Notwithstanding his explanation, the first respondent was dismissed by an order dated 30.11.1994.
5. The first respondent raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer. On the basis of the failure report dated 08.03.1995, he filed a claim statement before the second respondent Labour Court. The second respondent took up the dispute as I.D.No.45 of 1995 and issued notice to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation filed counter statement dated Nil (October 1995) before the Labour Court. On behalf of the first respondent 9 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W9. On the side of the Petitioner Corporation, one Jeyagopoal was examined as M.W.1 and through him 16 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M16.
6. The Labour Court tried the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue and by an order dated 21.03.1997 held that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was thereafter the documents were marked by the examination of M.W.1. The Labour Court on the basis of these materials held that there was no evidence to hold that the workman came inside the office in a drunken condition. No medical officer was examined and medical certificate regarding the drunkenness was also not proved. The persons who gave complaint against the workman were also not examined either in the domestic enquiry or before the Court. M.W.1 who was examined, frankly admitted that he was not an eye witness to the incident. The Labour Court on the basis of the Standing Orders which were marked as Ex.W9 held that at the maximum, only fine should be imposed on the workman. Even otherwise during the course of conciliation, the Management itself was ready to give employment as a fresh entrant by entering into a bi-partite settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court found this conduct of the Corporation itself will show that they have imposed a disproportionate penalty. It is in view of these facts, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service but without backwages.
7. In the present case, the enquiry conducted by the Management itself was set aside. Thereafter when an opportunity was given to them to prove the charges before the Labour Court, it is the petitioner Corporation which had miserably failed to utilise that opportunity. On the basis of materials placed before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the workman was not guilty of any misconduct. This Court is unable to interfere with the impugned Award.
8. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner Corporation is directed to implement the Award in its entirety within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
08.06.2010
Index: Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
svki
K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
Pre-Delivery order in
W.P.No.24031 of 2001
08.06.2010