G VIJAYAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated July 13, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 10200 of 1998.

(2.) The appellant was working as a Conductor in the second respondent Transport Corporation and he was absent from duty during October 25, 1995 to October 31, 1995; November 7, 1995 to November 9, 1995; November 12, 1995 to November 16, 1995, and November 19, 1995 to November 22, 1995. Since he used to be frequently absent, the second respondent Transport Corporation has decided to take disciplinary action and issued a charge memo on November 28, 1995. The explanation submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, therefore, disciplinary proceedings was initiated, Enquiry Officer was appointed and at the conclusion of the domestic enquiry, report was submitted that the charges stand proved. The second respondent Transport Corporation has decided to impose major punishment, and therefore, second show cause notice was issued to the appellant on April 7, 1996, proposing dismissal from service. After receiving explanation from the appellant, which was found to be not satisfactory, the second respondent Transport Corporation has passed the order of dismissal on July 25, 1996. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellant has raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, "I.D. Act") and was taken as I.D. No. 11 of 1997. After considering the materials available on record, the Labour Court, by order dated August 28, 1997, held that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the charges levelled against the appellant were held to be proved. However, by invoking Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent Transport Corporation has filed the writ petition.

(3.) It was the contention of the second respondent Transport Corporation before the learned single Judge that the appellant has absented himself for more than 27 occasions and in that regard 13 punishments were suffered by him. It is also the case of the second respondent Transport Corporation that pending the above writ petition, the appellant was reinstated into service on May 13, 2003, subject to the result of the writ petition and in normal course the appellant is to retire on May 31, 2014. The learned Judge on deciding as to whether the Labour Court has properly exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act and having found that the appellant has absented himself from duty unauthorisedly on 27 occasions and has been awarded 13 punishments in the past and even thereafter, he has not chosen to refine himself and therefore his past records are bad and in view of the past conduct of the appellant, which the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration, has allowed the writ petition filed by the second respondent Transport Corporation, setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in reinstating the appellant with continuity of service, but without back wages. The learned Judge has however stated that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- received by the appellant from the Court deposit made by the second respondent Transport Corporation shall not be recovered, since the amount has already been withdrawn by the appellant. It is, as against the said order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed by the second respondent in the writ petition, who was the employee of the Transport Corporation.