PAILY Vs. MUTHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 1956 of 1990 by the workman, viz. Assistant Conductor of the second respondent who was charge sheeted and after domestic enquiry dismissed from service by the management which became subject matter of an Industrial Dispute No. 126/1986 adjudicated by the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Ernakulam. The second respondent directed to reinstate the workman without benefit of back wages. Both the management and the workman are filed writ petitions, viz. O.P.No. 1956/90 and O.P. 5762 of 1990 challenging the award - the management against the direction to reinstate the workman and, the workman against the order denying the backwages. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the original petitions with the direction to re-employ the workman as Supervisor and not an Assistant Conductor. That means the dismissal of the original petition filed by the workman and modification of the award, in the original petition filed by the management. The workman has not filed an appeal against the order passed in his original petition, but he filed writ appeal against the judgment in O.P. filed by the management, viz. O.P. No. 1956/90. The contention in the writ appeal is that the modification of the award directing reinstatement of a workman to a lower cadre cannot be done by writ proceedings.

(2.) The Labour Court found that the charges were clearly established and that the enquiry was not vitiated from any of the grounds' alleged and the learned Single Judge found that those findings are based on legal evidence and they are not liable to be interfered with. The workman was holding a position of trust. Indisputably, there was forgery and the Labour Court found that the workman was responsible for the same and, therefore, the learned Single Judge found that the interference at the hands of the Labour Court in the punishment imposed by the management was not warranted. He would have thus allowed the original petition filed by the management. Normally, this Court will not modify the award but it does not mean this Court has no jurisdiction to modify the award and grant appropriate relief. In Sri. Rajagopal Transports v. Labour Court, 1980 (II) LLJ 351, the Single Judge of the Madras High court held as follows: