MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is the order made in W.P.No.47940 of 2006 (dated 20.7.2010), whereby the single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court, Salem in so far as ordering continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., from 4.7.1996 till the date of the award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.1995.

(2.) The brief facts are that the 2nd respondent joined in the service of appellant Corporation as Conductor on 27.8.1986. While he was in service, he committed several acts of misconduct, for which he was awarded minor punishments. The appellant Corporation issued a charge memo dated 16.7.1994 for his continued absence from 20.6.1994 onwards without any permission or leave. Enquiry revealed that a murder case was registered against the 2nd respondent in Crime No.136 of 1995 on the file of Kunnathur Police Station. The explanation of 2nd respondent to the charge sheet dated 16.7.1994 was not convincing and satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was ordered. Ample opportunity was given to the 2nd respondent to participate in the enquiry and the 2nd respondent also participated. The Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the 2nd respondent as proved and taking into consideration the enquiry report, appellant Management passed the order of dismissal on 4.7.1996 and 2nd respondent received the dismissal order immediately.

(3.) Challenging the dismissal order, the 2nd respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.146 of 1999 before the Labour Court after a delay of more than three years. Management resisted the said dispute contending that the 2nd respondent was continuously absent from duty and that the punishment imposed on the 2nd respondent is proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. Observing that the 2nd respondent was not charge-sheeted for involving in a murder case, but was charge-sheeted for continuous absence from duty and the 2nd respondent explained the situation under which circumstances he was prevented from reporting for duty. Labour Court further held that since the 2nd respondent was arrested by the police and was in jail for sometime, he could not report for duty and since the 2nd respondent explained the circumstances under which he was prevented from attending duty, the 2nd respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service. Setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service, Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service and other benefits, but without back wages.