AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram against the award passed
by the Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 196 of 1997 dated 28.04.2004 wherein, the Labour Court while setting aside the order of punishment,
ordered reinstatement of the 2nd respondent in service without back wages and with continuity of service.
The charge against the 2nd respondent was that when he was serving as a conductor in Bus bearing No. TCB 6022 plying from Kalpakkam to
Madras on 01.05.1992, he is alleged to have collected Rs. 30/- from three passengers and by making a scribe in the original tickets as if he
collected Rs. 3.50/- for each ticket and he has entered only Rs. 10.50/-, which resulted in issuance of charge memo for having misappropriated a
sum of Rs. 19.50/-. The 2nd respondent was subjected to enquiry and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report
holding the 2nd respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority
passed the order of dismissal on 04.03.1993 from service. The second respondent herein raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court,
Chennai. The Labour Court having seen the charges and the nature of allegations that the 2nd respondent had misappropriated a sum of Rs.
19.50/- and as the occurrence took place in the year 1991, but the inquiry report was submitted only on 22.07.1992, and further considering the
fact that the industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court in the year 1993 and the preliminary order was passed on 06.03.2002 and in
the process, more than 12 years having been lapsed from the date of report of the Enquiry Officer, was of the view that a punishment awarded to
the second respondent was disproportionate to the charges found proved. Therefore, the labour court passed an order directing reinstatement of
the 2nd respondent/workman with continuity of service but without any back wages. In my view also the order passed by the Labour court does
not require any interference, since the Labour Court has exercised the power vested u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The award passed by the Labour Court clearly shows that by denying wages for about 16 years, the workman has been suitably punished.
Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.