AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J)
The writ appeal had been filed by the respondents in WP(MD) No. 17020 of 2016 aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by order dated 10.02.2025.
The late husband of the respondent herein K.Shanmugasundaram was employed as a Conductor in the appellant Transport Corporation. During his service, he was visited with a charge memo alleging misappropriation of a sum of Rs.3.50/- and a shortfall of Rs.51/- from the daily collection. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The first charge was held to be proved. The 2nd charge was not held to be proved. Questioning the said findings, he had filed ID No.25/1999 before the Labour Court at Trichy. During the pendency of the ID case, he died and the respondent herein and, also her daughter and son were impleaded as further petitioners in the ID case. Finally by award dated 11.11.2009, the labour Court had dismissed ID No.25/1999. This necessitated the respondent herein to file the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge in his order had noted the meagre amount for which the entire disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, namely, Rs.3.50/- and primarily had also observed that for this amount, removal of service would be perverse. It was also noted that the award of the labour Court necessarily has to be interfered with and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. While allowing the writ petition, further direction had been issued that the late husband of the respondent is deemed to have continued in service from 01.10.1997 till 28.08.1996/the date of his death and for that period, terminal benefits including pension should be paid.
The learned counsel for the appellant raised an objection to that observation by stating that on and from 11.01.1991 employees of the transport corporation would be inducted in a Contributory Pension Fund Scheme and that therefore from 01.10.1997 till the date of death ie., 28.08.1996, there has been no contribution on the side of the late husband of the respondent. We would not enter into that particular issue, but only state that the respondent is entitled to be paid the terminal benefits as are payable to her late husband Shanmugasundaram. The appellant may give a working sheet of the terminal benefits to the respondent herein and if the respondent is aggrieved by that working sheet, necessary objection may be raised on those issues. The appellant may forward the working sheet of the terminal benefits payable to the respondent herein on or before 30.10.2026 and thereafter, the respondent may, if require, raise objection and if objections are raised, the same should be answered and an order should be passed within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said objection.
Observing as above, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.