Sri A.Ramakrishna, v. The Labour Court - Ii, 4th Floor And Another

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 2112 of 2004 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with I.D.No.178 of 1999 on the file of the 1st respondent-Labour Court and to quash the order dated 21.04.2001 passed therein, by holding it as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other benefits including full back wages.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as Conductor in the respondent corporation in the year 1986. While he was discharging his duties on 25.08.1988 the checking officials of the respondent corporation conducted a check and found that he had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities. The respondent-Corporation construing the said act as misconduct initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, and after conducting a regular enquiry, imposed punishment of removal from service vide orders dated 16.03.1989. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed I.D.No.178 of 1999 before the Labour Court. But the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. vide order dated 21.04.2001. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the incident in question, there are no such other incidents in the entire service career of the petitioner and that the punishment of removal is very disproportionate and that the Labour Court ought to have applied proportionality theory and interfered with the punishment of removal, but the Labour Court has erroneously dismissed the I.D. 5.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contended that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal for the proven misconduct and the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the I.D., and therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference.

6.

This Court having considered the submissions made by the parties and the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, is of the considered view that the punishment of removal imposed by the respondent-Corporation is very disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondentCorporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondentCorporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor.

7.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for fresh appointment as conductor without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits by duly taking into account the fact that this is the first allegation in the entire career of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23rd November, 2018 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No. 2112 of 2004 (disposed of) 23rd November, 2018 cbs