P JAGADEESH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court passed in I.D. No. 104 of 2001, dated 18.5.2005, in so far as the portion of ordering a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of retirement benefits alone and consequently, seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay all the back wages from the date of dismissal, till the date of superannuation and other consequential and retirement benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a 'Conductor' in the 2nd respondent Corporation with effect from 25.7.1978. While he was on duty from 11.8.1997 to 15.8.1997, he had sustained injuries on his right leg, which caused intolerable pain on his right leg. Therefore, he submitted medical leave application from 18.8.1997 onwards. But without considering the said application, the 2nd respondent Management issued a show cause notice on 29.8.1997 as if, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 11 days. Though, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.9.1997, the Management ordered for a domestic enquiry and thereafter, an order of dismissal from service came to be passed by the Management on 4.4.1998. As the conciliation proceedings ended in failure, the petitioner preferred I.D. No. 104 of 2001 before the Labour Court, challenging the order of dismissal. The Labour Court by its award, dated 18.4.2005 held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and however, while considering the question as to whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct, it had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, in the place of the order of dismissal. Challenging the said award passed by the Labour Court, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit and supported the award passed by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also submitted that the said of Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, and came to the conclusion that the Management was not justified in imposing punishment of dismissal at the fag end of the service of the petitioner, ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alone, without allowing the petitioner to have the benefit of continuity of service so as to enable to get his retirement benefits.