R K MANIAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER THE MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION RAMAKRISHNA ROAD SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (WP No.34858/2005 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the orders passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.F.vz; " ,1/19740/j/m/ngh/f/ (nryk;)/2005 dated 16.5.2005, quash the same and also direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner immediately with continuity of service as per the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.No.374/02 dated 28.6.2004. WP No.37087/2005 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.374 of 2002 dated 28.6.2004 and quash the same.) Common Order This order shall govern these two writ petitions namely W.P.No.37087/2005 at the instance of the management and W.P.No.34858/2005 at the instance of the employee.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions have arisen this way: The petitioner in WP No.34858/2005 was taken to service as an Assistant Technician on 30.3.1981. While he was serving, a charge memo was served on him that he has committed theft of articles belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation, on 4.4.1997. He was suspended from service on 19.4.1997. He gave his explanation. A domestic enquiry was conducted, during which he did not appear. The Enquiry Officer gave the report that the charge levelled against him, was proved. Then, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-employee. Following the same, he was dismissed from service by an order-dated 25.9.1997. A criminal case was also registered by the police, and he was charge sheeted. The said case was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.III, Salem, in C.C.No.489/97 for the charge of theft, which ended in acquittal. Further, the original charge was clubbed with another charge that he had absented from duty from 2.2.1997 to 13.4.1997 unauthorizedly without any permission or leave. A charge memo was given, and explanation was called for. The explanation when tendered, was not found satisfactory. A domestic enquiry was also ordered; but he did not attend the enquiry. BOTH the charges, at the time of the passing of the order, were clubbed together, and he was terminated from service. The said order of termination was challenged by him before the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.No.374/2002. On enquiry, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination dismissing him from service, and also directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and without other benefits. Aggrieved over the same, the management has brought forth W.P.No.37087/2005. After the impugned order was passed, a communication was served upon the employee to produce all the necessary educational certificates and also other certificates for the purpose of verification so as to give him the post of Technician as the new appointee. The non-compliance of the award of the Labour Court is the subject matter of challenge in WP No.34858/2005 at the instance of the employee.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, once the Labour Court has passed an order, without implementing the same, the management has given him a communication that he should produce the certificates for the purpose of verification, and he should be given a new entry which was against the order of the Labour Court; that even the same was challenged before this Court by the management; that there was no question of making a deviation from the order which was neither set aside nor stayed; and that under the circumstances, the management has got to be directed to strictly follow the order of the Labour Court as one challenged before this Court.