A. Stephen vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—The writ petition itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.

The petitioner''s services were terminated by third respondent. He raised a dispute and the matter went before the fourth respondent under the

Industrial Dispute Act. The fourth respondent passed an award on March 19, 1992. It was found by the fourth respondent that the petitioner was

guilty of the misconduct with which he was charged. But the Labour Court took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service was

disproportionate and consequently the Labour Court considered the question of reinstatement in service. But it observed that reinstatement was

not possible as the fair price shops were not conducted by the third respondent at that time. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the third

respondent to give a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner herein. The award of the Labour Court is not challenged by the third

respondent. But it is challenged only by the petitioner according to whom the third respondent is now conducting the fair price shops and

reinstatement is possible.

From the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is clear that even on the date of the award the fair price shops were conducted by the

third respondent the reinstatement was possible and that fact was not brought to the notice of the fourth respondent.

While the Labour Court directed payment of compensation, it has not considered the question of awarding of lesser punishment to the petitioner

as he has been found to be guilty of misconduct. S. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides that if the Labour Court is satisfied that the

order of dismissal is not justified it may set aside the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if

any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal as the circumstances of

the case require. In the present case while granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the Labour Court has not considered the question of

awarding a lesser punishment to the petitioner.

Hence the award of the Labour Court is vitiated and is hereby set aside. The Labour Court shall take up on its file I.D. No. 145 of 1989 and

decide the question of lesser punishment to be awarded to the petitioner while granting reinstatement. Now it is possible to reinstate the petitioner

as the third respondent is running the fair price shops. The Labour Court may grant the relief of reinstatement but at the same time it may decide the

question of lesser punishment to the petitioner and pass orders accordingly.

The Labour Court shall pass an award on or before December 31, 1992. The Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. There will be no

order as to costs.

In view of the disposal of the writ petition W.M.P. No. 12398 of 1992 is dismissed.