Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Hayath John on 18 December, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.27287 of 2003
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Salem Division II) Ltd.,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri 5. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Hayath John
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of dated 3.11.2002 and made in I.D.No.285/99 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem the second respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ajoykhose for R1
O R D E R
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to call for the records dated 3.11.2002 and made in I.D.No.285/99 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem the second respondent herein and quash the same.
2. The necessary facts which are to be considered for disposal of this case are as follows :-
The first respondent was the employee/conductor of the petitioner Corporation. On 14.02.1995 at about 3.15 p.m., when the first respondent was employing as conductor in a bus belongs to the petitioner Corporation in route No.8 (TN29N0227) between Aroor and Kadathoor branch, while the bus was moving towards Aroor, at Santhampatti bus stop, Checking Inspectors boarded into the bus and checked up the tickets issued by the first respondent. According to the petitioner Corporation, the Checking Inspectors found that in respect of two passengers with 15 luggages, though the first respondent/conductor collected a sum of Rs.50/- and after having taken Rs.34/- i.e, 17X2=34, for both luggages as well as two passengers, returned the remaining amount i.e., Rs.16/-, but had not issued six tickets for luggages and he had issued only nine tickets for the luggages and it was found that in the cash bag of the first respondent Rs.28.20 was excess money and therefore on these two counts, charges were framed as against the first respondent, on that, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Before the Enquiry Officer, three witnesses were examined for the Management side and three witnesses were examined by the employee side. After having concluded the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges framed against the first respondent employee were proved and accordingly, he had recommended disciplinary action against him.
3. Pursuant to the said Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner Corporation inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service on the first respondent on 16.07.1996. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the first respondent employee approached the Labour Court/the second respondent, by raising Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.285 of 1999. The Labour Court after having gone into the findings given by the Enquiry Officer as well as the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer by both sides and after having gone through the entire materials placed before the Labour Court, had come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the employee was not proved and ultimately passed the impugned award on 03.11.2002 by which, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and direct to reinstate the first respondent however, without back wages and other benefits. Aggrieved over the said impugned award passed by the Labour Court dated 03.11.2002, the petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4. I have heard Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation and Mr.V.Ajoykhose, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
5. Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submits that immediately after having been intercepted by the Checking Inspectors, the first respondent had given a statement, where he had admitted that he had not issued tickets for six luggages to the particular passengers, since the bus was moving slowly because of the railway gate which had to cross, he thought of completing the issuance of tickets to every passengers, before the next stop reaches and that is the reason why, without stopping the bus, he continued to issue tickets.
6. The learned Standing Counsel would also submit that, after the Checking Inspectors intercepted the first respondent/employee and on counting they were found that a sum of Rs.28.20 was excess in the cash bag of the employee. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the employee for such excess cash. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted, before whom, three management witnesses deposed including the driver of the bus. All these witnesses had given corroborative statements before the Enquiry Officer that the first respondent/employee did not issue six tickets for the luggages, even though having collected the amount from the passengers concerned. Therefore, he attempt to misappropriate the money is explicit and therefore based on that charges, which was supported by the witnesses enquired by the Enquiry Officer, who had given the finding that charges framed against the employee/ first respondent was proved.
7. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel would further submit that there was no complaint about the manner in which, the domestic enquiry was conducted by the petitioner Corporation and this factor has also been recorded by the Labour Court. When the domestic enquiry was properly conducted, both management witnesses and employee witnesses were examined and after affording due opportunity to the employee to defend his case, based on the evidence put forth before the Enquiry Officer, he had come to the right conclusion that the charges framed against the employee were proved. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that though power is vested with the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, even to re-appreciate the evidence, when the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was properly conducted, due opportunity were given to both sides, the interference of the Labour Court in appreciation of the evidence is very limited, and in this regard, the Labour Court has taken a completely different stand based on the evidences placed by the employee side and had brushed aside the evidences put forth by the management, which is contra to the actual findings given by the Enquiry Officer and this approach on the part of the Labour Court cannot be construed as an exercise within the meaning of Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act and therefore findings given and conclusion reached by the Labour Court cannot be accepted and it requires interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr.V.Ajoykhose, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the alleged incident of non issuance of tickets for six luggages was between the first respondent employee and the two passengers. The said two passengers had deposed before the Enquiry Officer as employee witnesses and had given clear contentions that the first passenger had been given nine tickets for the entire luggages that he was holding, however, to the second passenger when the first respondent was about to give the tickets for the luggages that he was holding, the Checking Inspectors of the petitioner Corporation stopped the vehicle and intercepted the conductor/first respondent. Because of the interception, the employee/first respondent was not in a position to issue remaining six tickets to the second passenger. When these two passengers who were actually involved in the episode had given clear deposition before the Enquiry Officer, which was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer for the reason best known to him as no other special reason cited by the Enquiry Officer for non believing such evidences on the side of the employee.
9. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, on the strength of these evidences itself the charges framed against the first respondent were to be considered as fake or not proved and therefore, the Labour Court in right perspective considered these aspects and given its findings. Therefore, no interference is required from this Court on the impugned order.
10. I have considered such submissions made by both sides. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that, the issue of alleged non issuance of the six tickets for the luggages, which was held by the second passenger, was the issue actually between the employee/Conductor, who is the first respondent and these two passengers, who deposed before the Enquiry Officer. They had given statement at the time of incident. However, before the Enquiry Officer, these two persons, when they were enquired as employee witnesses, had clearly deposed that they had given the said statement not on their own, because both the witnesses claimed that they are illiterate and they did not know what has been written. What has been written by the Checking Inspectors on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, where these two people were directed to put their thump impression, accordingly thump impression was affixed by these two people. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer has given his findings about the witnesses on the employee side and such portion of the Enquiry Report is extracted hereunder :-
bjhHpyhsp jug;gpy; \d;W rhl;rpfs; tprhhpf;fg;gl;lhh;fs;. Kjy; rhl;rpahf ,e;j bjhHpyhspna tprhhpf;fg;gl;lhh;. mth; jd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; md;W flj;J}hpy; ,Ue;J m+h; nehf;fp bry;Yk; nghJ btg;ghsg;gl;o !;nl$py; ,uz;L gazpfs; Vwpajhft[k; xU Mz;gazp 9 TilfSld; gpd;dhy; Vwpajhft[k; 6 Til Ms; Kd;dhy; Vwpajhft[k; ,e;j bjhHpyhsp of;fl; bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;L te;jjhft[k; Kd;dhy; ,Ue;J of;fl; bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;L te;jjhft[k; Kd;dhy; ,Ue;jth; gpd;dhy; Vwpathplk; gzk; th';fpf; bfhs;s Twpajhft[k; ,th; gpd;dhy; ,Ue;jtUf;Fk; 9 TilfSf;Fk; of;fl; bfhLj;Jtpl;ljhft[k; Kd;dhy; ,Ue;jth; 6 Tilfs; ,U Ms; vd;W Twpajhft[k; ,th; gzk; th';fpf; bfhz;L xU Msf;Fk; 6 Til of;fl;Lk; fpHpj;Jtpl;ljhft[k; mJ of;fl;il fpHpf;Fk; nghJ g[L';fpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; gazpfs; gzk; bfhLj;Jtpl;nlhk; bfh";rk; of;fl; th';fp bfhz;nlhk; vd;Wk; ,d;Dk; th';f ntz;Lk; vd;W TwpaJ bjhpahJ vd;fpwhh;. MW of;fl; Vd; g";r; bra;atpy;iy vd;W nfl;lhh;fs; vd;fpwhh;/ gzg; igapy; +.28.60 mjpfk; ,Ug;gjhf Twpdhh;fs; vd;Wk; fe;j ft[z;lD}h; L flj;J}h; nghfpwth;fSf;F bfhLf;f ntz;oa gzk; vd;Wk; mth;fs; "hgfk; ,y;yhky; ngha;tpl;ljhf TWfpwhh;. mth;fs; Mgprpy; vGjpg; nghl;L +.28.60 bgw;Wf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;fpwhh;.
,uz;lhtJ rhl;rpahf gazp nfhghy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;lhh;. mth; jd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; ,th; btg;ghsg;gl;oapy; 9 Til Vw;wpajhft[k; jPh;j;jfphp 6 Til Vw;wpajhft[k; ,th; gpd;dhy; Vwpajhft[k; jPh;j;jfphp of;fl;Lf;F gzk; ,thplk; th';fpf; bfhs;s brhd;djhft[k; fz;lf;lh; ,tiu nfl;ljhft[k; ,th; +.50 bfhLj;jjhft[k; mth; 34 vLj;Jf;bfhz;L +.16 bfhLj;jjhft[k; 9 TilfSf;Fk; kw;Wk; xU of;fl; bfhLj;jjhft[k; 6 TilfSf;F of;fl; fpHpf;Fk; nghJ gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; ghpnrhjfh;fs; of;fl;Lfisa[k; igiaa[k; th';fpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; ,e;j rhl;rp 11 of;fl; bfhLj;jjhft[k; mth; brd;wJk; ghpnrhjfh;fs; vGjpf; bfhLf;fr; brhd;djhft[k; ,th; vGjj; bjhpahJ vd;wjhft[k; mth;fs; vGjp ,UthplKk; nuif th';fpf; bfhz;ljhf TWfpwhh;.
\d;whtJ rhl;rp gazp 6 Til vLj;J te;jjhft[k; ,tnuhL nrh;j;J 7 of;fl; Mdjhft[k; ,th; ,uz;lhtJ rhl;rpapy; ,tUf;Fk; TilfSf;Fk; nrh;j;J of;fl; tH';f Twpajhft[k; ,e;j bjhHpyhsp 7 of;fl;LfSk; nfl;ljhft[k; nfhghy; th';FKd;g[ ghpnrhjfh;fs; igiaa[k; of;fl;ila[k; gpL';fpf; bfhz;ljhf TWfpwhh;/ gpwF ghpnrhjfh;fs; vGjp nuif th';fpajhf TWfpwhh;. ,tUf;F ifbaGj;J nghlj; bjhpa[k; vd;fpwhh;. ,j;Jld; bjhHpyhsp jug;g[ rhl;rpak; Kof;fg;gl;lJ.
11. Though such direct evidences were available before the Enquiry Officer, he has given findings in his report which read thus :-
bjhHpyhsp jd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; 6 of;fl;Lfs; bfhLf;fhjij xg;g[f; bfhs;fpwhh;. gzk; th';fpf; bfhz;L 6 of;fl;Lfis fpHpj;Jtpl;ljhft[k; mg;nghJ ghpnrhjfh;fs; te;J of;fl;Lfisa[k; g[j;jfj;ija[k; gpo';fp bfhz;ljhf TWfpwhh;. gzigapy; +.28.60 mjpfk; ,Ug;gjhf Twfpwhh;fs; vd;Wk; ,e;j bjhif gazpfSf;F bfhLf;f ntz;oa bjhif vd;Wk; "hgfk; ,y;yhky; ngha;tpl;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; gpwF MgPRf;F vGjpg;nghl;L +/28.50 th';fpg; ngha;tpl;lhh;fs; vd;W TWfpwhh;. bjhHyhspapd; ,uz;lhtJ rhl;rpjhd; gzk; bfhLj;jjhft[k; 9 TilfSf;Fk; xU of;fl;Lk; ,e;j bjhHpyhsp bfhLj;jjhft[k; 6 of;fl;Lfs; fpHpf;Fk; nghJ gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;fpwhh;. ,th; 11 rPl;Lfs; bfhLj;jjhf TWfpwhh;. bjhHpyhspapd; \d;whtJ rhl;rp gazp ,th; 6 Til bfhz;L te;jjhf TWfpwhh;. ,th; gpd;dhy; ,Ue;j bjhHpyhsp jug;g[ ,uz;lhtJ rhl;rpia 7 of;fl; th';Fk; go Twpajhft[k; ghpnrhjfh;fs; fz;lf;lhplk; rPl;ila[k; of;fl; g[j;jfj;ija[k; gpL';fpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;fpwhh;.
nkny fz;l rhl;rpa';fis ftdpj;Jg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJ ,e;j bjhHpyhsp gzk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L 6 of;fl;Lfis bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;gJ bjspthf bjhpfpwJ/ mth; TWk; tpsf;fk; of;fl;Lfis bfhLf;f fpHpj;jjhft[k; ghpnrhjfh;fs; gpL';fpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;fpwhh;. ,ijna kw;w bjhHpyhsp rhl;rpa';fs; TWfpwhh;fs;. ,e;j of;fl;Lfis ,th; fpHpj;jjhf ek;g ,aytpy;iy. Vd; vd;why; ,jw;F gpwF cs;s of;fl;Lfis gazpfSf;F bfhLj;J ,Uf;fpwhh;. Mjyhy; ,th; mg;nghJ of;fl; fpHpj;jhh; vd;gJ ek;g[tjw;F ,y;iy. nkYk; +.28.60 gazpfSf;F bfhLf;f ntz;oa bjhif vd;Wk; mth;fs; kwe;Jtpl;L ngha;tpl;lhh;fs; vd;Wk; gpwF MgPrpy; +.28.50 bgw;Wf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;W TWfpwhh;. nrhjidapd;nghJ mjpfk; ,Ue;jJ xg;g[f; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ,th; clDf;Fld; rpy;yiuia bfhLj;J ,Uf;f ntz;Lk;. nkYk; gazpSf;F bfhLf;f ntz;oa bjhif vd;gjw;F ve;j hpf;fhh;Lk; ,y;iy. ,e;j bjhHpyhsp ,d;tha;ir xG';fhf g{h;j;jp bra;atpy;iy vd;gJ bjspthf thjp jug;g[ rhl;rpa';fspy; ,Ue;J bjhpfpwJ.
nkny fz;l fhuz';fshy; ,e;j bjhHpyhsp kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F ,e;j bjhHpyhspna bghWg;g[ Fw;wthsp vdj; jPh;khdpf;fpnwd;.
12. Even though the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses who are non other than the passengers, who involved in that incident, has simply brushed aside their statement by merely giving a reason that both statements are unbelievable. No specific reasons had been given by the Enquiry Officer to unbelieve the such evidences given by the very passengers themselves.
13. When this aspect was placed before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, he has rightly considered the said issue and has given his findings which read thus:-
7. kDjhuh; cs;tprhuizapd; nghJ fye;J bfhz;L rhl;rpfis FWf;F tprhuiz bra;Js;shh;. cs;tprhuizapd; nghJ eph;thfj;jug;gpy; kndhfud;/ uhkrhkp/ Mde;jd; Mfpnahh; rhl;rpfshf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;fs;. kDjhuh; nkw;go rhl;rpfis FWf;F tprhuiz bra;a mDkjp mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. rhl;rp kndhfud;/ uhkrhkp Mfpnahh; kDjhuh; brd;w ngUe;jpd; ghpnrhjfh;fs; Mth;. mjpy; rhl;rp Mde;jd; mnj ngUe;jpd; Xl;Lduhf brd;Ws;shh;. kDjhuh; jug;gpYk; kDjhuh; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. kDjhuh; jug;g[ 2tJ rhl;rpahf nfhghy; vd;gth; tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. nfhghy; vd;gth; of;bfl; ghpnrhjfhplk; xU thf;F\yk; bfhLj;Js;shh;. me;j nfhghy; cs;tprhuizapy; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. nkw;go nfhghy; jd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; 9 TilfSf;F of;bfl; bfhLj;jjhft[k;/ 6 TilfSf;F of;fl; bfhLj;J bfhz;oUe;j nghJ gpoj;Jf; bfhz;ljhft[k; gzg;igiaa[k; gpL';fpf; bfhz;ljhft[k; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;. kDjhuh; jug;gpy; 3tJ rhl;rpahf nfrtd; vd;gth; tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. nkw;go rhl;rpa';fis ghprPyid bra;j tprhuiz mjpfhhp kDjhuh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L ep+gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf Kot[ bra;Js;shh;. tprhuiz mjpfhhp/ eph;thfj; jug;gpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;l rhl;rpfis kl;Lk; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf;bfhz;Ls;shh;. kDjhuh; jug;gpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;l rhl;rpa';fis rhpahf ghprPyid bra;atpy;iy. v.rh.M.1 ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifahFk;. mjpy; ghpnrhjidapd; nghJ tz;oapy; 50 gazpfs; ,Ue;jjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. tz;oapy; 50 gazpfs; ,Ue;jjhft[k;/ Mdhy; elj;Jdh; 48 gazpfSf;F jhd; of;bfl; bfhLj;jpUe;jjhft[k; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ v.rh.M.9 mwpf;ifapy; ghpnrhjfh; nrhjidapd; nghJ bkhj;jk; cs;s gazpfs; 48 vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. 2 gazpfs; 15 Til Rika[ld; Vwpa[s;shh;fs;. btg;ghsg;gl;o vd;w ,lj;jpnyna of;bfl; ghpnrhjid bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. gazpfs; Vwpa ,lj;jpw;Fk; ghpnrhjid bra;j ,lj;jpw;Fk; 2 fp.kP. MFk;. MjhtJ ,U !;nl$; MFk;. gazpfs; Vwpa ,lj;jpy; 44 gazpfs; ,Ue;jjhf v.rh.M.9y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. btg;ghsg;gl;oapy; Vwpa gazpfs; bkhj;jk; vz;zpf;if 7 vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdnt bkhj;jk; 51 gazpfs; ,Ue;jpUf;f ntz;Lk;. v.rh.M.1y; 50 gazpfs; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. v.rh.M.2 nfhghyDila thf;F\yk; MFk;. v.rh.M.3 Xl;LdUila thf;F\yk; MFk;. v.rh.M.4 kDjhuUila thf;F\yk; MFk;. v.rh.M.5y; gzg;igiz nrhjid bra;jJ gw;wp Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. gzg;igapy; TLjyhf +.28.20 ,Ue;jjhf Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. v.rh.M. 6/7/8 Mfpait ifg;gw;wpa of;bfl;Lfs; MFk;. v.rh.M.10 Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghizahFk;. 6 RikfSf;F fl;lzk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L of;bfl; tH';fhky; ,Ue;jjhft[k;/ gzg;igapy; +.28.60 mjpfhkhf ,Ue;jjhft[k;/ Rik czh;tw;w KiwapYk; bghWg;gw;w KiwapYk; ,Ue;jjhft[k; kDjhuh; kPJ Fw;wr;rhl;L Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. v.rh.M.11 kDjhuh; bfhLj;j gjpyhFk;. gazr;rPl;L tH';fpf; bfhz;oUf;Fk; nghJ btg;ghsg;gl;o vd;w ,lj;jpw;F g!; te;Jtpl;ljhft[k;/ mjw;Fs; ghpnrhjfh;fs; te;Jtpl;ljhft[k;/ gazpfsplk; of;bfl; bfhLf;Fk; nghJ jd;id bfhLf;ftplhky; epWj;jp gazr;rPl;Lld; gzg;igiaa[k; th';fpf; bfhz;ljhft[k; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;. kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghizgo 6 RikfSf;F fl;lzk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L of;bfl; tH';ftpy;iy vd;gjhFk;. Mdhy; gzg;igapy; +. 28.20 mjpfk; ,Ue;Js;sJ. 6 RikfSf;Fk; +.12_- jhd; MfpwJ. Mdhy; mjpfkhd bjhiff;F eph;thfj; jug;g[ rhl;rp 1/2 tpsf;fk; bfhLj;Js;shh;fs;. mjpfj; bjhiff;F +.2_- of;bfl; 13f;F +.26_- vd;Wk; +.2.20 of;bfl; xd;Wf;F +.2.20k; Mf +.28.20 vd;Wk; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;fs;. 13 of;fbfl;Lfs; tH';fg;gl tpy;iy vd;Wk; kDjhuh; kPJ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gltpy;iy. gzg;igapy; +.28.20 mjpfk; ,Ue;jjw;F kDjhuh; tpsf;fk; bfhLj;Js;shh;. mth; bfhLj;j tpsf;fj;jpy; xU gazp kPjp rpy;yiuia th';fhky; brd;Wtpl;lhh; vd;Wk;/ kWehs; nghf;Ftuj;Jf; fHfj;jpw;F te;J kPjp rpy;yiuia bgw;Wf;bfhz;ljhft[k; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;. ,d;tha;!; rhpahf g{h;j;jp bra;ag;glhky; ,Ue;jjhf Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; ,d;tha;@!; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy. ,d;tha;!; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhy; kDjhuh; tNy; bra;j of;bfl;Lfisa[k; bjhiffisa[k; ,d;tha;rpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shuh> vd;W bjhpe;Jbfhs;s tha;g;g[ ,Ue;jpUf;Fk;.
8. kDjhuh; of;bfl;fSf;Fhpa fl;lzj;ij th';fpa[s;shh; vd;W bjhpfpwJ. Mdhy; of;bfl; bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;oUf;Fk;nghJ ghpnrhjid bra;a ghpnrhjfh;fs; te;Jtpl;ljhft[k;/ of;bfl; g[j;jfj;ija[k; gzg;igiaa[k; th';fpf; bfhz;ljhft[k; kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;. gzg;igapy; mjpfkhf bjhif ,Ue;jjw;Fk; kDjhuh; bfhLj;Js;s tpsf;fk; Vw;Wf;bfhs;Sk; goahf cs;sJ. v.rh.M.1f;Fk; v.rh.M.9f;Fk; tpj;jpahrk; cs;sJ.
14. Since, the two issues ie., one is non issuance of six tickets for the luggages held by one passenger and the excess amount of Rs.28.20 at the cash bag of the first respondent employee, were found that, those charges had not been proved against the first respondent employee on the clear evidences, who deposed before the Enquiry Officer, hence the Labour Court has come to the right conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted against the first respondent was not justified and accordingly, the Labour Court decided to set aside the same.
15. In fact, in the impugned award, though the punishment was set aside by the Labour Court with a direction to the petitioner Corporation to reinstate into the service, the Labour Court has denied the back wages, continuity of service and all other benefits. Against those findings admittedly, no petition has been filed before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the first respondent employee. Therefore, the only remedy, which was allowed for, is the reinstatement of the first respondent/employee.
16. On considering all these aspects based on the evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which has been appreciated and re-appreciated by the Labour Court, as has been extracted above, this Court finds that there is no perverse findings on the part of the second respondent Labour Court, in the impugned order. It is settled proposition of law that the evidence can be re-appreciated by the Labour Court, and such power is always available with the Labour Court, especially under Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act and in this case, the Labour Court has rightly exercised such power by re-appreciating, the evidences as the direct evidence had not been considered or rejected or declared to be unbelievable by the Enquiry Officer. Such exercise on the part of the Labour Court, which is reflected in the impugned award, in the opinion of this Court, is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, especially under Section 11A of Act and therefore, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned award.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner Corporation is directed to implement the Labour Court award within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.
18.12.2017 Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rts R.SURESH KUMAR,J.
rts To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
W.P.No.27287 of 200318.12.2017