MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU Vs. M SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been directed against the impugned award passed by the second respondent-Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 38 of 2002 dated 2.1.2003, in which the order of dismissal dated 19.6.2000 passed by the petitioner, the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division, was set aside and thereupon a further direction was given to reinstate the first respondent-M. Subramani in service with continuity of service and other benefits, but without back wages . The learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the correctness of the impugned award, contended that when the first respondent unauthorisedly absented from duty from 21.1.2000 without any prior sanction of leave, a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken, for which the first respondent did not even care to submit his explanation, as a result, an enquiry officer was appointed to go into the charges. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his ex parte report. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, a second show cause notice was also issued to the first respondent. Once again he did not submit any explanation, though he received the same. When the first respondent repeatedly kept quiet without even giving any explanation whatsoever to the charge memo and also to the ex parte report submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner-Corporation, finding that the first respondent had accepted the charge memo, passed the order of dismissal from service on 19.6.2000. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the first respondent approached the Labour Officer, Krishnagiri for an amicable settlement of the dispute. The Labour Officer, finding no possibility to settle the matter, filed his failure report on 7.12.2001. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent-Labour Court in I.D. No. 38 of 2002. The Labour Court, by exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, erroneously interfering with the order of dismissal, forgetting for a moment that the first respondent, in spite of repeated notices issued to him to submit his explanation and also to participate in the enquiry and again to submit his explanation to the ex parte report submitted by the enquiry officer, did not come forward to submit his explanation or participated in the enquiry, passed the impugned award directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service by depriving the back wages alone. It was further contended that when the disciplinary authority found the first respondent guilty of all the charges, the Labour Court should have considered the conduct of the first respondent in absenting from duty without any prior sanction of leave from 21.1.2000. Further, secondly the Labour Court committed a serious mistake in not even appreciating the conduct of the first respondent for not attending the enquiry. Thirdly, it was pleaded that when the first respondent was issued with repeated notices on three occasions, one to show cause for the charge memo, second to participate in the enquiry and the third to submit his written representation, the first respondent did not make use of any of these opportunities. Ignoring all these serious lapses committed by the first respondent, the Labour Court ought not to have exercised the inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to pass the impugned award granting the benefit of reinstatement in service. Further, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that when the first respondent was not even a permanent employee, as he was serving only as a temporary Conductor attached to the Hosur branch on daily wage basis, the dismissal order for his unauthorised absence from 21.1.2000 should not have been viewed lightly. Ignoring all these vital aspects, when the order of dismissal was set aside, the petitioner-Corporation has been put to great prejudice. On this basis, he prayed for interference.

(2.) No one appeared for the first respondent. Admittedly, the first respondent, who was employed as Conductor with the petitioner-Corporation on daily wage basis of Rs. 146/-, without even obtaining prior leave sanction or permission from the petitioner-Corporation, unauthorisedly absented from duty from 21.1.2000. As his unauthorised absence affected the operation of the buses run by the petitioner-Corporation, he was issued with the charge memo dated 7.3.2000. But the first respondent did not even come forward to submit his explanation, as a result, the petitioner-Corporation, appointing the enquiry officer, issued another notice calling upon the first respondent to participate in the domestic enquiry. Once again the first respondent did not come forward to participate in the enquiry. Finally the enquiry officer submitted the ex parte report. Even after the submission of the report by the enquiry officer, when he was issued with the second show cause notice, on the third occasion also he did not come forward to submit his written representation. Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal on 19.6.2000. When it is an admitted case that the first respondent was serving only as daily wage conductor in the Hosur branch, there was no plausible explanation offered for his unauthorised absence from 21.1.2000. While so, this Court fails to understand how the claim made by the first respondent could be legally entertained. The best opportunities given to the first respondent were not properly availed of at every stage. Ignoring all these vital legal aspects, in my considered view, the second respondent-Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal by giving a direction to the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the first respondent in service. No doubt, Section 11-A gives sufficient power to a Labour Court to interfere with the order of discharge or dismissal, provided the Labour Court is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not properly justified. In the present case, the Labour Court, while exercising the inherent power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, before setting aside the order of dismissal that was passed for unauthorised absence, has not assigned to itself any good reason. Secondly, as highlighted above, the first respondent-employee did not even care to submit his explanation at any stage. Under this background, this Court, finding fault with the routine and casual exercise of inherent power by the Labour Court, is inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal passed against an unauthorised absentee. Therefore, finding fault with the approach adopted by the Labour Court, Salem in exercising the discretionary power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the impugned award is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 30740 of 2005 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.