LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-121

D. EGAMBARAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

Decided On October 31, 2022
D. Egambaram Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Petitions have been filed by the workmen and also the Management being aggrieved against the Award made in I.D.No.27 of 2002 dtd. 7/12/2011 made by the Labour Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the workmen herein had being working as a conductor on temporary basis and that when he was in duty, on 10/12/2000, the vehicle was checked. During the check, it was found that the workmen had not issued tickets for 15 passengers who had travelled from Tiruvannamalai to Chennai. After collection of the fare, the workmen had also not issued luggage ticket for the luggage which was there in the bus. The workmen's cash bag was also checked and was found that there was an excess of Rs.1.25 and hence, the workmen was placed under suspension on 11/12/2000 and a charge memo was issued on 14/12/2000. Pursuant to the charge memo an enquiry was conducted. An enquiry report was made holding that the charges against the workmen was proved and discharged from services on 7/5/2001, against which the workmen has preferred I.D.No.27 of 2002, in which an Award was passed on 7/12/2011. The Tribunal has held that the enquiry conducted against the workmen was not fair and in proper manner. Therefore, it had independently gone into the charges made against the workmen and based on the various documents filed before it and the evidences of the workmen and the Management, had held that the charges were not proved and therefore, the order of dismissal was set aside. But, however, considering the fact that the workmen was dismissed on 7/5/2001 and the dispute had been raised only in the year 2002, the Labour Court had reinstated the workmen with continuity of service only for the purpose of calculation of gratuity at the time of retirement and not for calculation of salary and also held that the workmen would not be entitled for backwages and other attendant benefits.

(3.) Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the workmen and Mrs.S.Pavithra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Management.