THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to proceedings of the second respondent in his order in P.G.A. Case No.55 of 1993 dated 8.8.1994 and to quash the same.

(2.) THE husband of the third respondent Raghavan joined as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation from 11.1.1968. On 12.7.1980 when he was working as Conductor, he lost his cash box. Subsequently, on 15.7.1980 he paid the entire amount to the management. For the failure on his part to deposit the amount on 14.7.1980 and for his negligent act in his duty, he was charge sheeted, an explanation was called for from him and an enquiry was also conducted by the petitioner Corporation. The Enquiry Officer in his findings, has reported that the charges have been proved and on that basis, Raghavan was dismissed from service. Against that action, Raghavan raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.259 of 1984 before the Principal Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate and therefore, it set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner Corporation to calculate the full wages from 15.7.1980 to 3.5.1987 and disburse the same to the third respondent, Seetharaghavan after adjudicating the subsistence allowance already paid by the petitioner Corporation. Thereafter, the third respondent made a representation to the first respondent and the first respondent also directed to disburse the gratuity amount of Rs.12,380/ -to the applicant within 30 days. Even though the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay the amount to the third respondent, the writ petitioner without doing so, filed an objection before the first respondent and has also filed an appeal before the second respondent in P.G.A.No.55 of 1993 and the second respondent, by an order dated 8.8.1994, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THIS argument cannot be accepted. The Labour Court has categorically ordered that the third respondent shall be paid the entire wages payable to the deceased Raghavan. When it is stated that the entire wages it include gratuity, the same cannot be separated. Therefore, this writ petition has to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed, confirming the order of the Second respondent, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Madras -6.