WORKERS CONGRESS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein a limited interference was made to the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages for the period she was illegally kept out of employment.

(2.) The brief facts to be noticed are that the worker, the appellant, was proceeded against for unauthorised occupation of a line room. The worker was employed with the 2nd respondent from 1971 onwards. In 1984, she married one Rajendran, who was the son of one Meyyalagu who was a worker of the 2nd respondent. The said Meyyalagu was originally in occupation of the line room. Meyyalagu was proceeded against for misconduct, pending which he expired in 1988. The appellant along with Meyyalagu's family continued occupation of the building. One Mohan, another son of Meyyalagu and the wife of Meyyalagu were sought to be evicted by filing a suit numbered as O.S No. 289/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam. In the meanwhile, the electricity charges and grazing charges; the latter deeming the cattle owned by Meyyalagu to be in the custody of the appellant/worker, were recovered from her salary. When the suit was pending, Mohan is said to have vacated the line room and the respondent then sought to implead the appellant/worker by Ext.P1 application dated 07.03.2001.

(3.) The appellant/worker continued occupation of the line room allotted to Meyyalagu on the premise that she was allotted only a kitchen room as residential quarters. The 2nd respondent simultaneous to the impleadment made in the suit, initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging unauthorised occupation of a line room. The disciplinary proceedings ended in a finding of guilt and the appellant/worker was dismissed from service.