V. PARAMASIVAM Vs. II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner made a challenge to the award of the first respondent / II Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 11.07.2012 made in I.D.No.616 of 1997, in and by which the second respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner on the ground that he retired from service on 16.04.2010 and as such, the order of reinstatement cannot be passed, by filing W.P.No.34664 of 2012 and the learned Judge, vide impugned order dated 22.01.2018, has dismissed the writ petition and aggrieved by the same, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal.

(2.) Facts leading to the present litigation have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the impugned order passed in the writ petition, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the entire facts once again, except to cull out the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal:

(3.) Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed of documents and would submit that the appellant was arrested on 28.11.1996 and he moved a bail application and it was strongly resisted by the second respondent/Management as intervenor and ultimately, he was enlarged on bail on 03.12.1997 and despite knowing the fact that he was incarcerated in connection with the criminal case, framed charges, conducted exparte enquiry and passed the order of dismissal from service and such an act on the part of the second respondent/Management is per se illegal and against all cannons of the principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Labour Court, despite reaching the conclusion that the punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to the charge of misconduct, under normal circumstances should have reinstated him without backwages, but merely ordered compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits and would further submit that if he could have been reinstated either from the date of preliminary award dated 21.05.2003 or at least after the dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the second respondent/Management against the said Award, he could have earned increments, consequent promotions and other benefits, but he has been unjustly denied of the same and in terms of monetary entitlement, would have got Rs. 11 lakhs and odd.