J JEYAKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 24.5.2004, made in I.D.No.75 of 2003.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had been working as a Gateman in the Port Railway Section of the Traffic Department of the Chennai Port Trust. While so, based on the complaint made before the Kasimedu Police Station, the petitioner had been detained under the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabber and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). THE said fact had been informed to the first respondent by a letter, dated 23.8.1997, issued by Commandant Central Industrial Service Force, Madras Port Trust. THEreafter, the petitioner had been released from custody, on a conditional bail, on 25.9.1998. Since, the petitioner was under severe mental agony and as he was in depression, he had not intimated to the first respondent about his arrest and detention.

(3.) THE third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had found that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It had been found that the petitioner had been punished by the management of the first respondent Port Trust, not on the ground that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case and as he had been detained under the Act, but on the ground that he had not informed the higher authorities about his detention in jail, immediately, thereafter, as per the Madras Port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. THE third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had also held that no appeal had been preferred by the petitioner or the Union of Employees challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had passed the award, dated 24.5.2004, made in I.D.No.75 of 2003, refusing to accept the claims made on behalf of the petitioner.