THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALLAVAN SALAI, CHENNAI Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, passed in I.D.No.144 of 2001 dated 12.05.2008, wherein the first respondent/Labour Court has passed an order reinstating the second respondent with continuity of service.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan salai, Chennai - 2 and the second respondent, namely, M.Vanagamu has worked as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. When the second respondent was on duty in the route No.846 from Bangalore to Madurai, at the point of checking at Andhipalli, the Checking Inspector while making his checking, he found that though the second respondent collected Rs.80.00 from four full tickets passenger and two half tickets passenger for the journey from Bangalore to Hosur, he failed to issue tickets to the passengers. Therefore, he has misappropriated the above said fare amount. Based on the report given by the Checking Inspector, the petitioner has been issued a charge memo to the second respondent on 12.06.1998. On receipt of the said charge memo, the second respondent has submitted his explanation on 18.06.1998 by denying the charges. Unsatisfied with the above said explanation, the petitioner has conducted a domestic enquiry as per Rules and Regulation. The second respondent also participated in the enquiry and due opportunity was given. Based on the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved.

(3.) On receipt of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued on 08.09.1998 to the second respondent. On receipt of the same, he has given his reply on 19.09.1998 without any specific denial of the allegation. Considering the said second explanation and enquiry report and the past records of the second respondent, since the second respondent was punished several times, the petitioner, by an order dated 15.06.1999, terminated the petitioner from service. Challenging the said termination order, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent and filed I.D.No.144 of 2001. Considering the materials and evidence produced by the petitioner as well as the second respondent, the first respondent/Labour Court was pleased to allow the said I.D.No.144 of 2001 partly on 12.05.2008 and refused to give the back wages for the period of 10 days till the reinstatement. But the first respondent has directed the petitioner to instate the second respondent with continuity of service.