Tamilnadu State Transport v. The Presiding Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :15.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P No.23005 of 2004 Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Salem Dn.II) Ltd Dharmapuri rep. By its Managing Director
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
2. N. Lakshmanan ....Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.353 of 2002 dated 21.07.2003 and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Baby For R1 : Court For R2 : No appearance
O R D E R
The Writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 21.07.2003 in I.D.No.353 of 2002 passed by the first respondent, thereby directed the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent without any back wages and without any other benefits as fresh entrants. 1/5
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the second respondent, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent either in person or through pleader. Perused the materials available on record.
3. The second respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. He was on duty from Dharmapuri to Tirupathur route on 30.08.2000, the Checking Inspector found that he had collected Rs. 14.25/- each from a group of 4 passengers, totalling a sum of Rs.57/- and failed to issue tickets. Further he had excess amount of 9.50/- in his cash bag. Therefore, he was issued with charge memo on 02.09.2000 and after receipt of explanation, ordered to conduct enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, the principles of natural justice was followed and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent was served with show cause notice. After taking into account of all the aspects, the second respondent was dismissed from service on 28.11.2000. Therefore the second respondent raised Industrial Dispute before the first respondent.
2/5
4. The Labour Court found that the punishment imposed on the second respondent was disproportionate and as such, ordered to reinstate the second respondent into service without any back wages and without any other benefits. The second respondent was directed to be reinstated as fresh entrant. Thereafter, the petitioner reinstated the second respondent into service on 01.06.2005. However, the second respondent was again absent for the past 1 1⁄2 years and he failed to report duty before the petitioner. In fact, after serving of notice, the second respondent failed to engage any counsel and his name is also printed in the cause title. However, the second respondent failed to appear before this Court either in person or through his pleader.
5. That apart the second respondent was imposed the following punishments :- Sl.No Date of misconduct Nature of misconduct Punishment awarded 1.
30.06.2010 FC Regularization postponed for 2 years 2.
23.08.2011 Unauthorized absent Censured 3.
05.02.2012 Unauthorised absent Absent days treated specific punishment 4.
27.11.2012 Unauthorised absent Fined Rs.200/- 5.
06.10.2012 Unauthorised absent Fined Rs.200/- 3/5
Sl.No Date of misconduct Nature of misconduct Punishment awarded 6.
16.04.2012 Involving Fatal Accident Regularization postponed for 6 months 7.
26.01.2013 Not filling invoice properly Fined Rs.100/- 8.
29.04.2013 Unauthorised absent Fined Rs.200/- 9.
25.03.2015 Cash bag shortage Dropped 10.
30.06.2011 FC Case pending 11.
29.01.2017 FC Case pending Total Punishments (1st & 2nd Appointments) 14 Punishments
6. In view of the above, the Award dated 21.07.2003 in I.D.No.353 of 2002 passed by the first respondent, is hereby quashed and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
15.09.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Lpp To The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
4/5
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J Lpp W.P No.23005 of 2004 15.09.2023 5/5