R PANDIAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the award in I. D. No. 56 of 1994 dated 30. 4. 1996 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages and attendant benefits.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor Harijan employed as Conductor in the second respondent Corporation from 1. 12. 1982 to 13. 11. 1992 and he was terminated from service illegally on the ground that he did not issue proper tickets and caused a loss of Rs. 8. 10 paise to the Corporation; that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted and the Labour Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record in I. D. No. 56 of 1994 but instead confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner by the Management and hence the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it would submit that on 22. 7. 1992 while the petitioner was working as Conductor, the petitioner without issuing tickets to two passengers of the value of eighty paise and ninety paise i. e. for a sum of Rs. 1. 70, gave them only wrappers of the ticket book and when the Ticket Examiner conducted to check it was found out and the conductor recorded statements of witnesses and when the petitioner was asked to countersign the same, he received it and swallowed it; that the said act of the petitioner was witnessed by the driver and other passengers and the driver of the bus gave a statement to that effect and on the basis of the complaint by the Checking Inspector, the petitioner was suspended from 28. 7. 1992; that a charge memo was issued on 30. 7. 1992 and after getting his explanation, a retired District Judge Thiru K. S. Narasimhan was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he conducted the enquiry as per law and after affording full opportunity to the petitioner, he was removed from service after second show cause notice; that the approval application was filed before the Labour Court and it was allowed after due consideration and therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the second respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.