P.PERUMAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner Thiru.P.Perumal was employed as a watchman in the second respondent mill. He joined service in the year 1981. While so, he was issued with a charge memo that on 19/12/1996, he had allowed a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59-D-1246 to take out two more cone bags instead of the permitted 76 cone bags. Alleging that it would actually constitute a misconduct in terms of the standing orders, action was taken against him. After conducting the domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dtd. 27/5/1997. The Writ petitioner raised an industrial dispute. It was taken on file by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.65 of 1998. The Labour Court by award dtd. 22/12/2008 came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the Writ petitioner was liable to be set aside. It also came to the conclusion that the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to the claim of the Writ petitioner was not sustainable in law. However, the Labour Court made an observation that there was some negligence on the part of the Writ petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court also surmised that the Writ petitioner/workman would have been gainfully employed elsewhere. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court while directing reinstatement to the workman, denied him backwages. This award is challenged at the instance of the workman. It is to be noted that the mill management did not choose to question the award.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Writ petitioner pointed out that the case on hand is rather peculiar. The Writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 12/10/2008. The award itself came to be passed only on 22/12/2008. Neither the learned counsel appearing for the workman nor the learned counsel appearing for the management informed the Labour Court about the fact that the workman had already reached the age of superannuation by then. Under the impression that the workman can be still employed by the mill management, the order for reinstatement was made. Obviously the said order for reinstatement was not feasible of compliance. The only issue that is to be considered is whether the Writ petitioner ought to have been awarded backwages or not.