OWNING INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the Award, dated 09.11.1988, passed by the first respondent Tribunal in I.D.No.69 of 1987.

(2.) The second respondent was appointed as a Sanitary Cleaner in the Integral Coach Factory on 15.06.1972 and he continued in that post during May, 1974. A complaint was registered against the second respondent under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Korukkupet and he was prosecuted before the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The second respondent was found guilty of the offence, however he was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent based on his conviction in the criminal court and he was removed from service with effect from 23.01.1975. Subsequently, the second respondent gave a representation to the General Manager and it was considered afresh after giving notice to him and he was removed from service with effect from 17.01.1979 by the order passed in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Against the order of removal, the second respondent preferred appeal and the same was rejected. At the instance of the second respondent, conciliation proceedings were initiated and the Central Government made a reference to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras and the same was referred to the first respondent and taken on file in I.D.No.69 of 1987. The first respondent Tribunal held that the removal of the second respondent from service was not justified and set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent in service. Against that award, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5184 of 1989 and on 17.11.1994, the case bundle was returned to the petitioner to be presented before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 10.04.1996, held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition against the order of Labour Court and hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Award as illegal.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter stating that though he was convicted in the criminal case, he was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he challenged the order of removal from service by preferring appeal and that came to be dismissed and the review filed by him was rejected and the Industrial Tribunal held that as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, there is no bar for continuing in service. It is further stated in the counter that Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act is also applicable and the Award is sustainable.