T KANDASAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by T. Kandasamy challenging the impugned award passed by the first respondent the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai under which the Labour Court has upheld the order of removal and also held that the concerned workman is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. On 9.4.2013 this Court has given time to the management-second respondent herein to consider payment of suitable compensation to the petitioner. In spite of having granted time, this Court finding no response is inclined to proceed on the merits of the matter.

(2.) (I) But this Court is not able to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. As noted above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner workman was unable to attend the duty under the second respondent management from 10.3.1994. The reason assigned by the petitioner shows that he was secured by the local police for offences said to have been committed by him along with another person under section 302 I.P.C. But, subsequently that criminal case was also dismissed in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, though the second respondent was entitled to proceed against the petitioner for the unauthorised absence from 10.3.1994, in the present case, the second respondent also is entitled to impose any one of the major punishments contemplated under clause 32 of the Standing Orders which will have to be followed as a consequence to the finding given on the light of clause 23(g) or 31(8), the second respondent for the reasons best known to them miserably failed to impose any one of the punishments given under clause 32. When the removal of name of the petitioner workman from the roll of the second respondent management has not been shown as one of the punishments, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, when retrenchment being the termination by the employer of the service of the workman for any reason whatsoever except those expressly excluded in the section 2(oo), this Court accepting the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

(3.) In view of the above, looking at the case of the petitioner as a peculiar one, by taking note of the further fact that he has not admittedly worked from 10.3.1994 till now, the petitioner is entitled to get 30% of the back wages along with the order of reinstatement. The petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement, continuity of service, attendant benefits and only 30% of the backwages. Accordingly, W.P. No. 6281/2005 stands allowed with the abovesaid directions. No costs.