AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner was a driver in the Respondent-establishment. Alleging commission of misconduct, articles of charge dated 5.10.1987 was issued to the Petitioner, to which he submitted a reply. Dissatisfied with the reply, a domestic enquiry was ordered, which having been held, upon receipt of the report from the enquiry officer to the effect that the charges levelled in the charge sheet dated 5.10.1987 have been proved, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 15.7.1988. The Petitioner questioned the order of dismissal and a reference having been made to the Labour Court, the reference has been allowed in part directing the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the amount paid to other workmen. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition.
Sri V.S. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner after arguing the matter for some time submitted that the Respondent management has paid lumpsum amount as compensation to the other workmen, who were alleged of commission of a similar misconduct: and hence, the Respondent management may be directed to pay to the Petitioner the compensation amount accordingly,
Sri S.N. Murthy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the management does not dispute the fact that the Respondent has paid compensation in lieu of the reinstatement. A joint memo filed in reference No. 185/1990 would indicate that the management and the workmen entered into a settlement and the payment was made by the Respondent.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice, if the Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from 1.12.1993 till the date of payment. The Respondent shall make the payment to the Petitioner within a period of one month from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.