PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADURAI Vs. THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND M. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Labour Court, Madurai dated 11 -2 -1993 in I. D. No. 105/91 granting the relief of reinstatement with full service benefits without back wages, Pandian Roadways Corporation has filed W. P. No. 14980/93. The Conductor, not satisfied with the award more particularly, for rejection of his back wages, has preferred W.P.No.21946/93. Since both the writ petitions arise from the same award, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

(2.) FOR convenience I shall refer the Pandian Roadways Corporation as petitioner and the Conductor M. Sakthivel as 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. On 17 -3 -89, while he was on duty in bus No. TMN 5851, at about 11 -35 A.M. the checking inspector checked the bus at Anna Nagar bus stand along with 21 passengers. It was found that tickets which had already been issued in the previous trip were again re -issued by the 2nd respondent. Since the misconduct reported against the 2nd respondent were grave and serious in nature, the petitioner issued a charge memo dated 4 -4 -89. The 2nd respondent submitted his explanation on 19 -4 -89 and since it was not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted his findings on 21 -11 -89, wherein he found that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved beyond reasonable doubt. After accepting the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued a 2nd show cause notice on 9 -12 -89 conveying their proposed punishment. He submitted his explanation on 10 -1 -90. Since the explanation did not merit for reconsideration, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 3 -7 -90. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation, he approached the Labour Court under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court after a detailed consideration, came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, without giving any reasons, the first respondent set aside the order of dismissal and direct that the second respondent should be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Against the said order, which went against the Corporation, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.14980/93. As stated earlier, the workman questioning the rejection of backwages, has filed the other writ petition, namely, W.P.21946/93.

(3.) THE point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Labour Court is justified in modifying the punishment by invoking Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the 2nd respondent is entitled to full benefits as claimed.