MANAGEMENT TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI DIVISION III) LIMITED Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (CONCILIATION) AND K SOBITHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division at Nagercoil. They have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order passed by the first Respondent Conciliation Officer in Approval Petition No. 184 of 2003, dated 22.12.2006. By the impugned order, the first Respondent declined to entertain the approval petition filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 19.6.2008 and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the second Respondent entered appearance through his counsel and filed an application in M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2009 seeking for a direction to pay the last drawn monthly wages for a sum of Rs. 5194.10 from the date of the order of the first Respondent, dated 22.12.2006 till the disposal of the writ petition. This Court by an order, dated 19.8.2009 ordered the said application and directed the Petitioner to pay the law drawn monthly wages. But, however it was also stated that in case the management restored him in service pending the writ petition, there was no necessity to pay any amount under Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act. It is accepted by both sides that the management had restored the Petitioner in service even pending the writ petition.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner management was that the second Respondent was appointed as a Conductor with effect from 1.5.1997. On 2.4.2002 when he was working as a Conductor in the route No. 3E Vadasery Bus stand to Madanpillai Dharmam, the checking officials entered into the bus at James Town bus stop. It was found at the time of checking that he was in drunken stage. He was also taken to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil. The second Respondent did not hand over the tickers and the collection bag. On investigation, it was found that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 74.60. Therefore, he was placed under suspension on 4.4.2002. Subsequently, a charge memo was given to him including misappropriation and also found to be in drunken stage. In response to the charge memo, dated 12.4.2002, the second Respondent submitted an explanation. As it was not satisfactory to the management, a personal hearing was offered. In the meanwhile, on 3.5.2002, the suspension was revoked. The second Respondent did not appear for the personal hearing. He had accepted the charges. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 14.8.2002 found him guilty of charges. A show cause notice, dated 31.8.2002 was given to him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. But he did not submit any explanation. Therefore, after verifying the records, it was proposed to dismiss him from service. He was also offered one month wage in terms of Section 33(2)(b).