THE MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM DIVISION-II) LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND P PALANIANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a state owned Transport Corporation. The present writ petition has been filed against the Award of the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 113 of 1997 dated 28.10.1998. By the said Award, the Labour Court had granted the relief of reinstatement with service continuity to the second respondent. But, however, the Labour Court held that the workman was not entitled for any backwages. It also held that he was also liable to be visited with a punishment of stoppage of an increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.

(2.) The writ petition was admitted on 10.8.1999 and an interim order was also granted subject to the management complying with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'). Subsequently, by an order dated 11.10.1999, this Court directed that the management should deposit a sum of Rs. 27,000/- to the credit of I.D. No. 113 of 1997 and on such deposit, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be withdrawn without security. The balance sum of Rs. 17,000/- was to be invested in a nationalised bank for a period of three years subject to further renewal. A further direction was also given to pay Rs. 2195/- to the workman with effect from 1.12.1999. In the order dated 11.10.1999, it was recorded by this Court that the management was not prepared to reinstate the workman. But contrary to the stand taken, the management had reinstated the workman even during the pendency of this writ petition. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the workman was 48 years old and by now he would have even reached the age of superannuation.

(3.) But, however, Mrs.Narmada Sampath, learned Counsel representing Mr. Parthiban, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reinstatement was without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition. Further even after reinstatement, he was involved in almost four instances of misconduct during the last eight years and, therefore, no indulgence should be shown to the second respondent. If subsequent to the reinstatement, the workman was involved in any misconduct, it is not as if the management is helpless in taking action in terms of the certified standing orders. Therefore, the last contention need not deter this Court from going into the other issues raised herein.