ORDER
V.S. Sirpukar, J.
1. The employer is coming up against the award passed by the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has directed the payment of back wages to the employee who was working as a workman. The said employee, Ekambaram, was working as an attendee in the Christian Mission Hospital, Madurai from the year 1973. His last pay drawn was Rs. 350. He was served with a charge memo on January 12, 1983 on the ground that he had sold some old newspapers for a sum of Rs. 20 and misappropriated the said amount. An explanation was immediately given by the employee on January 14, 1983 but he was suspended from service with effect from Februarys, 1983. It is an admitted position that against this suspension, the respondent employee had gone to the Civil Court and the Civil Court ultimately dismissed the said suit by its judgment dated January 29, 1987. Since the subsistence allowance was not paid to the employee after this suspension, he went before the concerned authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and though a direction was given to the employer to pay the subsistence allowance, it is an admitted position that no subsistence allowance came to be paid. It is the case of the respondent employee that he was never given subsistence allowance nor was he furnished with the documents and the list of witnesses. He, therefore, kept on making petitions to the Management out nothing was forthcoming. It seems that he was given a notice about an enquiry on January 8, 1990 for which also the employee asked for the details and the documents. However, it seems that ultimately a second show cause notice was issued to him on March 3, 1990. The workman also seems to have written to the Management again but ultimately an order came to be passed on March 27, 1990 directing the removal of the respondent workman with effect from February 24, 1983- All these were challenged before the Labour Court by way of petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act. The Labour Court has gone into the issue and ultimately has chosen to record a finding against the employer directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman. It is this award which is challenged before me by the Management.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
firstly urged that the Labour Court had erred in
dubbing the enquiry as illegal as all the
opportunities were given to the workman and
inspite of them he had never chosen to appear
before the enquiry officer and take part in the
enquiry. It is then contended that there was a
specific admission given by the workman that he had removed the old records and papers and sold the same for Rs. 20 and that such admission was to be found in his own handwriting. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the finding recorded by the Labour Court was incorrect. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that the workman had been working in some other concern and, therefore, there was no question of payment of any back wages to him.
3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent-employee pointed out that inspite of the starting of the enquiry somewhere in the year 1983 till last not even a farthing was paid to the workman by way of subsistence allowance and he was kept high and dry. The learned counsel also points out till the last the workman kept on clamouring for supply of documents, supply of list of witnesses, etc., and nothing was done. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that even on merits there was nothing and there was practically no evidence available to prove the so-called guilt and there was no question of the workman getting any fair deal in the absence of any subsistence allowance or any document having been supplied to him. Lastly, the learned counsel pointed out that it would not be for this Court to enter into the question of facts recorded by the Labour Court in the award regarding the finding of guilt. The learned counsel had also to suggest that the respondent-workman had actually retired as he had reached the age of superannuation even at the time when the award was passed and it is only because of that the back wages had been ordered to him.
4. When we see the award of the Labour Court, it is clear from the same that though the charge-memo was served on January 12, 1983, no subsistence allowance was ever paid to the workman till the final order was passed on March 27, 1993. The workman was thus kept high and dry for full ten years. It is not as if the workman did not complain against the non-payment of subsistence allowance. He had gone against the same before the concerned authority and the concerned authority had also directed the payment of subsistence allowance.
It is also an admitted position that as against that order an appeal was filed and the appeal was dismissed and yet the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any subsistence allowance was ever paid to the respondent workman. In the absence of all these, the whole enquiry is vitiated and is rendered non est as per the established law laid down by the Apex Court. The only reason given for not paying
the subsistence allowance was that the workman’s civil suit was pending. That may be so. That had got nothing to do with the payment of subsistence allowance nor was there any order of stay to the payment of subsistence
allowance and in that view the enquiry itself appears to be vitiated.
5. As if all this is not sufficient it is to be found that the charge against the employee was
extremely paltry. It was as if he had sold the old papers and old records of the hospital for Rs. 20. The Labour Court has gone into the issue even on merit and has recorded a finding that the management has not been able to prove
the charge against the workman. The Labour Court has recorded a finding firstly that the enquiry itself was heftily delayed inasmuch as the simple enquiry took as much as ten long years during which the workman was left high
and dry without any subsistence allowance. There is no reason to reject this finding by the Labour Court.
6. As regards the charge also in paragraphs 6 and 7, the Labour Court has discussed the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the Management has not been able to prove anything against the workman. The Labour Court has taken into consideration that though the alleged date of occurrence was
December 25, 1982, it was only on December 28, 1982 belatedly the complaint was given against the workman. The silence on the part of the workman for three days has been viewed adversely by the Labour Court against the
Management. The respondent workman had also entered into the witness box and had suggested that this delay was on account of the fact that the Management had to produce false witnesses against him. That cause seems to
have been accepted by the Labour Court. The
Labour Court has also commented adversely on
the manner in which the whole affair went on
as also the extreme paltry nature of the charge
for which the extreme punishment of dismissal
was given. I do not think that in writ jurisdiction
under Article 226, it will be proper for me to
enter into the merits of the matter. In fact the
question has been concluded by the Labour
Court and that too in a satisfactory manner.
The Labour Court has properly approached the evidence, oral as well as documentary, and therefore, there ill be no question of interfering with the same. Thus, there is nothing which can be said to be adverse against the award passed by the Labour Court. The petition has no merits and it is dismissed but without any orders as to the cost.