DURAIRAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an award of the Labour Court, Madurai, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.98/88 dated 06.02.1998, in so far it relates to denial of backwages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner herein had raised an Industrial Dispute under the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 03.01.1974 with the second respondent corporation and while he was on duty on 23.02.1978 proceeding in the route from Madurai to Thirubuvanam at about 8.30 a.m the checking inspector, who checked the bus detected that the petitioner was reissuing two tickets of 0.45 paise each and was found to be in possession of seven tickets of 0.45 paise each of the previous trip in order to reissue the same. A charge memo dated 27.02.1978 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was also placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.03.1978 stating that he had no motive of misappropriating the ticket amount but had the good intention of preventing loss to the respondent corporation. It is stated on 11.11.1978, the suspension was revoked and thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report, which according to the petitioner was perverse and thereafter the management issued a second show cause notice on 11.06.1978 proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.06.1978 and by order dated 07.07.1978, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The conciliation before the Labour Officer, Madurai ended in failure and the Government declined to make a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court and therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9275/1983 for a direction to refer the dispute of his non-employment to the Labour Court for adjudication. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 07.12.1986, directing the State Government to refer the dispute for adjudication. Accordingly, a reference was made to the first respondent as I.D.No.98/88. Before the Labour Court both the petitioner and the Management did not adduce any oral evidence, the petitioner marked three documents as W1 to W3 and the management marked M1 to M20. The Labour Court framed two issues for consideration, namely whether the charges alleged against the petitioner were proved and as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is justified. The Labour Court decided the issue No.1 against the petitioner and while considering the question of the punishment imposed, the Labour Court by exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner aggrieved by that portion of the award dated 06.02.1998 is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.D.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the correctness of the award on several grounds. Firstly by contending that the Labour Court having held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate ought to have ordered reinstatment with full backwages. That denial of backwages on the ground of delay is uncalled for and the Labour Court erred in applying strict rules of limitation in disallowing the backwages in toto. It is further contended that once the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, ought to have granted full backwages and other attendant benefits. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been out of employment from 07.07.1978 and for over 20 years, he was without any employment and therefore it is a fit case where, this Court should consider and direct payment of backwages.