A STEPHEN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's services were terminated by third respondent. He raised a dispute and the matter went before the fourth respondent under the Industrial Dispute Act. The fourth respondent passed an award on March 19, 1992. It was found by the fourth respondent that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct with which he was charged. But the Labour Court took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and consequently the Labour Court considered the question of reinstatement in service. But it observed that reinstatement was not possible as the fair price shops were not conducted by the third respondent at that time. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the third respondent to give a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner herein. The award of the Labour Court is not challenged by the third respondent. But it is challenged only by the petitioner according to whom the third respondent is now conducting the fair price shops and reinstatement is possible.

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is clear that even on the date of the award the fair price shops were conducted by the third respondent the reinstatement was possible and that fact was not brought to the notice of the fourth respondent.