The Special Officer vs S. Kannan and The Presiding Officer

M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiotari to call for and quash

the award of the second Respondent Labour Court, dated 17.11.2004, made in I.D. No. 328 of 1998.

It has been stated that the first Respondent had joined the service in the Petitioner bank, as an attender, on 22.11.1961. He was promoted as

an Inspector of the Petitioner bank in the year, 1964. Due to the misconduct of embezzlement committed by him, during his tenure, as an Inspector

of the Petitioner bank, between 9.1.1967 and 31.3.1967, he had been placed under suspension, from 6.3.1969. He had been issued with the

charge memo, dated 23.4.1971, for which he had sent a reply, on 10.5.1971. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted. Based on the enquiry

report, dated 20.3.1971, he was issued with the show cause notice, dated 7.8.1972. The first Respondent had submitted his explanation, on

21.8.1972. Since, the explanation submitted by the first Respondent was not satisfactory he had been dismissed from service, by the management

of the Petitioner bank, by an order, dated 27.1.1973. Without preferring an appeal against the order of dismissal, he had raised an industrial

dispute, before the second Respondent Labour Court, in the year, in I.D. No. 1135 of 1993, on the file of the Labour court, Vellore, which had

been transferred to the file of the Labour Court, Salem and re-numbered as I.D. No. 328 of 1998. The second Respondent Labour Court had

passed the award, dated 17.11.2004, directing the Petitioner management to pay the first Respondent the retrial benefits due to him, as per the

relevant provisions of law, prevailing at the time of his deemed retirement from service, on 31.7.1990. The Petitioner management 3 has challenged

the award of the second Respondent Labour Court stating that the second Respondent Labour Court had erred in entertaining the industrial

dispute after a long lapse of nearly 20 years from the date of his dismissal from service.

It had also been stated that the award of the second Respondent Labour Court is erroneous, as it had failed to note that the first Respondent

was no longer in the service of the Petitioner bank at the time of the raising of the industrial dispute, in I.D. No. 1135 of 1993, on the file of the

Labour court, Vellore. Further, the second Respondent Labour Court had not taken into consideration the relevant materials on record before

passing the award, dated 17.11.2004. It had also been stated that the second Respondent Labour Court had failed to note that the first

Respondent would not be entitled to any retiral benefits, as per law, as he had been dismissed from service, based on the charges levelled against

him and such charges having been proved during the enquiry conducted by the Petitioner management.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels

appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the

second Respondent Labour Court, dated 17.11.2004, made in I.D. No. 328 of 1998, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There is nothing on

record to 4 sufficiently explain the inordinate delay of nearly 20 years in raising the industrial dispute, in I.D. No. 1135 of 1993, before the Labour

Court, Vellore, by the first Respondent. Further no proper reasons have been given by the second Respondent Labour Court, for directing the

Petitioner management to pay the retiral benefits to the first Respondent, taking into account the date of his deemed retirement from service i.e.

31.7.1990. The second Respondent Labour Court had passed the impugned award, without setting aside the order of the Petitioner management,

dated 27.1.1973, dismissing the first Respondent from service.

The second Respondent Labour Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the first Respondent would be entitled to the retiral benefits,

even though he had been dismissed from service. From the impugned award, dated 17.11.2004, it is clear that the second Respondent Labour

Court had not considered the relevant aspects of the matter, in their proper perspective. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to

set aside the impugned award of the second Respondent Labour Court, dated 17.11.2004, made in I.D. No. 328 of 1998. Accordingly, the writ

petition stands allowed. No costs.