MANAGEMENT Vs. P.PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the second respondent in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2186 of 2009 as against the order of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the Writ Petition.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order directing the management to pay 25% of the back wages is erroneous inasmuch as the first respondent has neither stated in the petition nor produced any material to show that he was not gainfully employed, after he was discharged from service. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the scope of entitlement of back wages especially in the case where the allegation against the first respondent are proved. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further pointed out that the learned Single Judge has passed the order based on sympathy and he further submitted that the first respondent does not deserve any sympathy having regard to the misconduct of the first respondent in the course of employment as a Watchman.