J. JEEVANANDHAM Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the appeals arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the award of the Labour Court was modified while confirming its finding, we deem it fit to dispose of the both the appeals by way of this common judgment.

(2.) For the sake of brevity the parties in W.A.(MD).No.1612 of 2016 are taken as such. The appellant was working as a driver with the second respondent Corporation. A charge memo was issued to him alleging that he has assaulted another driver. Enquiry officer after affording due opportunity found the appellant guilty. Based upon the report of the enquiry officer, the appellant was also given opportunity. The disciplinary authority having found the charges proved as held by the enquiry officer imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

(3.) The appellant raised a dispute in I.D.No.112 of 2000 before the Labour Court. The appellant neither examined himself nor any document marked. The respondent No.2 marked 16 documents as Ex.M1 to Ex.M16. The Labour Court found that the appellant was given a fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry. On merit it was also found that charges are also proved and awarded the punishment as stated above. The learned Single Judge concurred with the award of the Labour Court. It was also noted that there is nothing wrong in the statement made on behalf of the second respondent in proving that the appellant has committed the misconduct as mentioned in the charges framed. The occurrence took place inside the bus. Therefore, it was merely held that there was no perversity in the finding held by the labour Court warranting interference. However, exercising its discretion with reference to charges proved, it was felt that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and shocking his conscience and accordingly it was directed to modify as one of compulsory retirement.