MANAGEMENT OF TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (COIMBATORE) LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SALEM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., challenging the correctness of the Award dated 30.06.2009 passed in I.D. No.470 of 2000 by the learned Labour Court, Salem, the first respondent herein, on the ground that the first respondent, while interfering with the punishment imposed by the Corporation against the second respondent/Workmen, has completely overlooked the evidence on record.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that no passenger's statement was recorded by the checking officers is not a ground to come to a conclusion that the charge framed against the individual was not proved. Moreover, the approach of the Labour Court in omitting to note the serious lapse that the excess two tickets have also not been entered in the Invoice and in raising doubts as to the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority while awarding the punishment, is not in accordance with law; hence, absolute interference is called for. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the second respondent having been employed as a Conductor in the petitioner/Corporation, on 02.07.1979, suffered an allegation of misappropriation due to ticket alteration, which warranted initiation of departmental proceedings at the hands of the petitioner/Management. Finally, he was dismissed from service on 20.05.1991. But, he was re-appointed again as a fresh entrant under the 18(1) settlement on 24.10.1994. At any rate, the second respondent had a bad history in his past service, for which, on four occasions, fine was imposed and on two occasions, he was severely warned. Thus, when records bear testimony to the actuality that the second respondent is a repeated offender, the learned Labour Court had completely overlooked all these past records, while exercising its discretionary powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ultimately issued an erroneous direction for reinstatement, along with 50% of the backwages. As this approach is absolutely uncalled for, the writ petition has been filed seeking interference by this Court with the impugned Award.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and it is submitted that the Award was passed only after exhaustively considering the facts and circumstances in the light of the clear evidence available on record and the Award passed being perfectly in order, there is no scope for interference, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.