D. SWAMINATHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the Review Applicant submits that the order passed by this Court dated 25.4.2012 in W.A. No.437 of 2011 is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.

(2.) ADVANCING his arguments, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Review Applicant that this Court, in W.A. No.437 of 2011, on 25.4.2012, has erroneously held that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent/Principal Labour Court, which has been confirmed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.37919 of 2005 and further learned Judge imposed the punishment of five increments cut. The said findings are opposed to law, inasmuch as the first respondent/Principal Labout Court, Chennai has already awarded the punishment of alternative employment to the Review Applicant, under which he was posted as Diesel Filler, which is not the equivalent post.

(3.) THAT apart, it is the prime contention of the learned counsel for the Review Applicant that the materials before this Court point out that the Review Applicant has involved 22 times in committing the offence. In this regard, this Court has erroneously held so and has not interfered with the award of the Labour Court.