ORDER
1. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. The Government Advocate takes notice for the 2nd Respondent. The management K.S.R.T.C. challenges the award passed by the labour Court dated May 29, 1993. By the said award, the complaint of the 1st respondent was allowed and the order passed by the management dismissing the 1st respondent from service was set aside. The management was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service and payment of full back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the management has preferred this writ petition.
2. The 1st respondent was working as a conductor. On May 23, 1985 the 1st respondent while conducting the bus, the Security Inspectors checked the bus and they found that the conductor had not issued tickets to ten passengers who were in the bus travelling from V. V. Puram Post Office to Central Bus Stand, despite collection of 0.60 paise from each of the said ten passengers. It was also found that he had not issued tickets to two passengers though he collected the chargeable fare of 0.50 paise from each of them, who were travelling from V. V. Puram 1st cross to Central Bus Stand. A domestic enquiry was held and ultimately the 1st respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated July 31, 1990. The 1st respondent did not raise a dispute. Instead he chose to file a complaint in Reference No. 189 of 1990 invoking Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was submitted that an industrial dispute was raised by the Trade Union of the 1st respondent alleging unfair labour practice by the management and to impose a minor punishment against the 1st respondent. It is also brought to my notice by Mr. Mukund Menon, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-Management that the earlier dispute was disposed of by the Tribunal allowing the reference and withholding the punishment imposed on the workman. Since that earlier dispute has ended in favour of the 1st respondent, instead of raising a dispute the 1st respondent moved the Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of a complaint.
3. Mr. Mukund Menon submitted that although the Tribunal has power to treat the complaint like a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, he did not approach the matter as if it was a dispute. He also submitted that no opportunity was given to the management to read evidence on merits and therefore he strenuously submitted that the matter will have to be remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal to enable the management to lead evidence on the misconduct.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent 1 has relied on a reported judgment in the case of M/s. Kamarhatty Company Ltd. v. Ushnath Pakrashi (1959-II-LLJ-556) (SC). This judgment of the Supreme Court is a clear authority for the proposition that when a complaint is made under Section 33A, the Tribunal or the Labour Court has full jurisdiction to treat it as a dispute and deal with the matter in accordance with law and grant such relief that the workman would be entitled as if it is a dispute. The Supreme Court has stated as follows at p. 557 :
“In our opinion, the answer to the limited question on which the special leave has been granted can only be one in view of the language of Section 33A. That section lays down that where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing to the Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint the Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall submit its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. It is thus clear that a complaint under Section 33A of the Act is as good as a reference under Section 10 of the Act and the Tribunal has all the powers to deal with it as it would have in dealing with a reference under Section 10. It follows, therefore, that the Tribunal has the power to make such order as to relief as may be appropriate in the case and as it can make if a dispute is referred to it relating to the dismissal or discharge of a workman. In such a dispute it is open to the Tribunal in proper cases to order reinstatement. Therefore, a complaint under Section 33A being in the nature of a dispute referred to a Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act, it is certainly within its power to order reinstatement on such complaint, if the complaint is that the employee has been dismissed or discharged in breach of Section 33.”
Therefore, this Court will have to consider the merits of the case. As far as the domestic enquiry is concerned, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The management did not choose to lead any evidence although they have filed their objections. Mr. Menon, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no finding was given on the validity of the domestic enquiry and therefore no back wages should be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not able to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel since on Issue No. 1 there is a finding, although Mr. Menon submitted that there was neither an issue on the domestic enquiry nor a finding. He submitted that at best the Labour Court should have granted reinstatement without back wages. The submission of the learned Counsel of the management is rejected for the simple reason that the materials were examined by the Labour Court and the Labour Court determined that the dismissal of the workman was unjust. In this case there is an observation by the Labour Court that no evidence at all was led on behalf of the management. The Labour Court naturally will have to go through the materials produced by the workman and grant such relief as he is entitled to under law since the domestic enquiry was held to be not fair and proper and no evidence was led by the management. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Labour Court in reaching such a conclusion.
5. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and to put an end to this litigation once and for all, I feel the full back wages should be reduced to 75% back wages. In all other respects the award stands confirmed. If the workman has not been reinstated, time granted for reinstatement is six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and three months for payment of back wages. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.