M. RAJENDRAN Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF ARUL ANANDARCOLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the writ petitions arose out of the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No. 579 of 1989, they are taken up together for hearing and decided by this common order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'workman' and 'management'.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P.[MD].No. 6527 of 2009 was appointed as Head Clerk in the first respondent college, on 01.08.1970. The petitioner was given promotion as Selection Grade Head Clerk. Charge memos were issued to the petitioner. Denying the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation before the first respondent. Being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the first respondent continued the disciplinary proceedings. Finally, the first respondent, by order, dated 25.06.1982, passed an order of dismissal from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute by filing I.D.No. 579 of 1989. The first respondent filed the counter statement, denying the claim of the petitioner. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent approached this Court, questioning the orders passed by the Labour Court in the interim applications filed by the first respondent, raising preliminary objections. However, this Court negatived the claim of the first respondent. Finally, the Labour Court, Madurai, passed an Award, dated 02.04.2009, and set aside the order of dismissal from service, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner is entitled to all the back wages from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his superannuation. In pursuance of the Award of the Labour Court, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.04.2009, before the first respondent, with a request to comply with the Award of the Labour Court. However, there was no response from the first respondent. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation before the second respondent, on 02.04.2009. Based on the said representation, the second respondent addressed a letter to the first respondent stating that the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner will have to be paid by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to file W.P.[MD].No. 6527 of 2009.