MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM-III) LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent in the instant appeal and also in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as "employee") was working as a Driver since 6.5.1986. As recorded by the Labour Court, the employee remained absent from 1.4.1997 onwards, as he fell sick on 1.4.1997 and thereafter, on account of the death of the husband of his sister, he could not join duty for a period of eight days. Thereafter, he reported for duty along with the cal certificate. However, he was not permitted by the management appellant. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 14.5.1997 was issued to the employee and the employee, on receiving the said notice, submitted a representation on 16.10.1997. The enquiry was adjourned on request of the delinquent employee, which was subsequently adjourned to 4.12.1997 on the ground that the management witness was not available. On 4.12.1997, the delinquent employee could not appear. Without adjourning the proceedings further, the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte. The second show cause notice was issued consequently on 19.1.1998, to which the employee submitted his explanation on 7.2.1998. Being dissatisfied with the explanation, the management appellant passed an order of dismissal on 21.2.1998. The delinquent employee raised a dispute some times in the year 2001 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 516 of 2001. The Labour Court, having recorded that the employee was not permitted to join duty after having completed eight days, it was also found that the management had not produced any witness when the employee had examined himself as W.W.I. It was also held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court, by order dated 28.11.2008, set aside the order of dismissal, granting reinstatement with 50% of the consequential benefits. It was directed to comply with the order within a period of three months from the date of the order.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the management appellant herein came up with the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge, having examined all the facts of the case, held that the actual unauthorized absence was only for eight days and the subsequent absent was on account of denial by the management to permit the employee to join duty. The learned Single Judge also upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thus, it was found that even otherwise the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the alleged offence.

(3.) The management has come up with this intra-court appeal on altogether different grounds that the employee was an habitual absentee and it was a case of gross misconduct. It was also contended that he was habitually negligent of duty and lack of interest in work. Next, it was contended that the management lost confidence in the employee and non-availability of other punishment warrants for punishment of dismissal from service. The appellant has not made any challenge to the procedure or findings on the ground that it was perverse and illegal.