TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. K EGAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed against the award. When the first respondent K.Egambaram was working in the petitioner Electricity Board as Commercial Inspector he said to have committed certain acts of misconduct, namely violation of standing order under Rule 30 Sub clause (iv)THEft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Board's property or business. THErefore, charge memo dated 17.08.1996 was issued to the first respondent calling upon him to submit his explanation. On submission of the explanation, being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent K.Egambaram, the petitioner Electricity Board appointed the Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation and Maintenance/South/Cheyyar as enquiry officer, who after giving reasonable opportunity submitted his report holding that the charge framed against the first respondent was proved.

(2.) THE charge memo against the first respondent was that he had demanded a sum of Rs.350/- from one Velayudam for preparing estimate for supply of Electricity service connection. After submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner Electricity Board again issued a second show cause notice dated 04.03.1997 enclosing copy of the findings of the enquiry officer calling upon the workman to submit his explanation and after receiving the second show cause notice the first respondent also submitted his reply and after careful consideration of the entire records, the petitioner vide memo dated 21.04.1997, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, though an appeal provision was available in the standing order, the first respondent/workman did not file an appeal but raised a dispute before the Inspector of Labour and the conciliation proceedings having ended in failure, the Inspector of Labour submitted his report to the Government in his proceedings dated 02.02.1998. Following the failure report submitted by the conciliation officer, the Government in G.O.(D)No.923 Labour and Employment Department dated 18.11.1998 referred the dispute to the second respondent/Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court took up the matter for consideration in ID.No.361/1998.

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Labour Court, while exercising power under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, though has aggreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, about the guilt of the workman/first respondent herein, to meet the ends of justice, and also for the purpose of enabling the poor workmen to get pension and other benefits, rightly interfered with the quantum of punishment, that too, only modifying the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Since, the Labour Court has only modified the punishment. This court need not interfere with the same.