AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Heard Mr. R. Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Bala Ramesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent.
This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 2173 of 2012, dated 06.3.2012, wherein the appellant has challenged the Award passed in C.P. No. 96 of 2002, dated 16.11.2011 on the file of Labour Court, Cuddalore, rejecting the Claim Petition on the ground that appellant has no pre-existing right to claim back wages. The learned single Judge affirmed the said order. Against which, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
It is seen from the records that appellant was proceeded with departmental action for taking a sick person to the hospital without getting prior permission in the vehicle of the 1st respondent Management. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant ended in dismissing the appellant from service and the said order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 471 of 1985 on the file III Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai dismissed the said I.D. by an Award dated 27.1.1989 and the said Award was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W.P. No. 2949 of 1996. By an order dated 17.4.2002, the learned single Judge partly allowed the writ petition by observing as follows:-
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service. With regard to back wages and other benefits, the question is left open in view of fact that in the evidence of M.W. 3 it is stated that after dismissal, the petitioner is working in a Homeopathy hospital. It is also open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in this regard in a manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 4720 of 1996 is closed.
Being aggrieved by the order of reinstatement, the 1st respondent Management has preferred writ appeal in W.A. No. 2708 of 2002 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.1.2008 and in paragraph 3, the Division Bench held thus:-
Perused the order under challenge. Though it is not right on the part of the 1st respondent to have taken the jeep belonging to the appellant, without prior permission, yet, it is not such a grave misconduct so as to warrant imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. In fact, the Chief Cane Officer, examined as M.W. 1 before the Labour Court has admitted that at times of emergency, prior permission may or may not be need. In our considered opinion, the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for holding that the order of the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity are valid and justified and we see no ground to interfere with the order under challenge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Having not satisfied with the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2708 of 2002, dated 4.1.2008, a Special Leave to Appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent Management in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C.C. 12634 of 2008 and by an order dated 19.9.2008, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal.
Appellant was reinstated in terms of the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. No. 2949 of 1996, dated 17.4.2002, which became final. Appellant has preferred Claim Petition in C.P. No. 96 of 2006 and claimed back wages for the non-employment period. The said Claim Petition was dismissed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore holding that there is no pre-existing right to claim back wages and therefore, the Claim Petition cannot be decided, which order was also affirmed by the learned single Judge.
Since Award of the Labour Court made in I.D. No. 471 of 1985, dated 27.1.1989 was set aside by partly allowing the writ petition in W.P. No. 2949 of 1996 and in the said writ petition, the learned single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to pursue his remedies with regard to the back wages by proving the non-employment during the period in which he was kept in employment, we are of the view that the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai may consider the said issue in I.D. No. 471 of 1985 on filing an application by the appellant by taking the same on file and render a finding, after giving opportunity to the appellant as well as the 1st respondent Management, regarding gainful employment of the appellant or not. The said decision is directed to be arrived at by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, writ appeal is disposed of, as observed above. No costs.