MANAGEMENT PATTUKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT Vs. S PRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner management challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated November 1, 1998, whereby the first respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with half back wages from August 20, 1986 with other attendant benefits within one month from the date of publication of the award.

(2.) IT is alleged that the first respondent was appointed as a conductor on September 18, 1975 with the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on September 7, 1976 for four days and then removed from service on March 11, 1977 and thereafter reinstated. Again the first respondent was terminated from the service of the petitioner on June 28, 1984 and he filed an approval petition in No. 233 of 1984 before the second respondent, since I. D. No. 62 of 1982 has been pending.

(3.) THE main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely considering the fact that the employee had sufficiently suffered since 1984, and without coming to the specific finding and even upholding the finding arrived at, the discretion exercised by the tribunal is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that though in compliance with the orders of this Court Rs. 30,000 has been paid as held wages without prejudice to the contentions raised in this writ petition, subsequently also the employee committed the same misconduct and therefore, he was terminated from service by a fresh order, dated August 8, 1992, which was not challenged, according to learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in G. S. R. T. C. v. Bhikabhai Majibhai, (1997-II-LLJ-425) (SC) wherein the Labour Court found the workman guilty of the charges, but by exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directed the management to re-employ the workman without considering the fact that in the past the workman was found guilty in other cases and despite opportunity given to him, he had again indulged in the same activity. Under the circumstance it was held that the order passed by the Labour Court could not be sustainable. Learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal had given its finding only on humanitarian ground, stating that the employee suffered since 1984, which cannot be said to be a reasonable one, and the discretion so exercised cannot be said to be on the merits of the case.