MANAGEMENT OF D T C Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 8.1.1998, whereby the learned labour court directed reinstatement of the respondent workman along with back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) Brief facts for deciding the present petition are that the respondent was confirmed as a driver with the petitioner corporation on 25.9.1984 and on 26.8.1985, he hit a bicycle resulting in the death of rider of the bicycle. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent and an enquiry was set up where the respondent was found guilty and hence his services were terminated on 23.10.1986. The respondent filed a writ (WP(C) 553/1987) before this court which was dismissed. Thereafter an industrial dispute bearing ID No. 638/87 was raised by the respondent and vide order dated 8.1.1999 the reference was answered in favour of the respondent with the directions to grant reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Feeling aggrieved with the said award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Assailing the said award, Ms. Charul Sarin counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer against the respondent workman was proper after due observance of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same did not merit any interference by the labour court. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned labour court failed to appreciate the fact that acquittal of the respondent from the criminal proceedings would not ipso faco absolve him from the liability so far the disciplinary action was concerned. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned labour court also failed to appreciate that the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent workman without seeking any leave of the court to raise the industrial dispute would operate as res judicata and therefore raising of industrial dispute by the respondent workman was clearly barred by the principles of res judicata and therefore, the award passed by the labour court on this ground alone, is liable to be set aside. In support of her arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Kerala Solvent Extractors Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr.,2006 13 SCC 619 and T.N.C.S.Corpn.Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, 2006 2 SCC 255.