IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 19-03-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.9622 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.11746 of 2006 The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem) Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Salem. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 2.K.Tamilarasu .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.158 of 2003, dated 15.12.2004, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi Bharati For Respondents : Mr.V.Manisekaran (R2) for Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharmarajan O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 15.12.2004, made in I.D.No.158 of 2003. 2. It has been stated that the second respondent was working as a Tradesman, in the petitioner Corporation. On 10.2.2000, when the second respondent was coming out of the workshop, at the end of his duty hours, he was checked by the security guard. It was found that he had two new cylinder liners, belonging to the Corporation, in his bag. Therefore, a charge memo, dated 11.2.2000, was issued to him. Since, the explanation submitted by the second respondent, dated 25.2.2000, was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry had been conducted, following the principles of natural justice. The second respondent had fully participated in the enquiry. After the completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted a report finding the second respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Based on the enquiry findings, a second show cause notice, dated 17.4.2000, together with the enquiry proceedings, proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal on the second respondent, was issued to him. After considering the explanation submitted by the second respondent, for the second show cause notice, he had been dismissed from service, vide order, dated 8.5.2000. Thereafter, after a period of two years he had raised an industrial dispute, before the first respondent Labour Court. 4. The first respondent Labour Court, on considering the evidence available on record and on considering the fact that the workman had admitted the charges, and based on the evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, to prove that the second respondent had stolen the cylinder liners, had come to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer that the misconduct alleged against the second respondent had been proved, cannot be held to be improper. However, the first respondent Labour Court had proceeded on the basis that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the second respondent to steal the cylinder liners and that since, it was the first incident, in order to give one more chance, the order of dismissal, dated 8.5.2000, passed by the petitioner Corporation had been set aside and a direction had been issued, by the first respondent Labour Court, to reinstate the second respondent in service, with continuity of service, excluding the period, from 1.4.2001 to 23.4.2003, without backwages and other benefits and to postpone the increment, for one year, with cumulative effect. Challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 15.12.2004, made in I.D.No.158 of 2003, the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 15.12.2004, is contrary to the well established principles of law and has been passed, without jurisdiction. The first respondent Labour Court, having held that the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be improper, ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed on the second respondent. The first respondent Labour Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the second respondent had no deliberate intention to steal the cylinder liners. In cases of proved theft the past record of service of the delinquent would be irrelevant. Even though it was the first incident of misconduct committed by the second respondent no leniency can be shown by giving him one more opportunity. The direction issued by the first respondent Labour Court to reinstate the second respondent, with continuity of service and to impose the punishment of postponement of increment, for a period of one year, with cumulative effect, is arbitrary and illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 15.12.2004, made in I.D.No.158 of 2003, cannot be said to be erroneous and illegal. Though the first respondent Labour Court had found that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent employee to be fair and proper, it had exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to impose the lesser punishment on the second respondent employee, taking into consideration various relevant factors. 7. Even though the petitioner management had imposed on the second respondent employee the punishment of dismissal from service, the first respondent Labour Court had modified the punishment by directing the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent in service, with continuity of service, excluding the period from 1.4.2001 to 23.4.2003, without backwages and other benefits. The first respondent Labour Court had also directed to postpone the grant of increment to the petitioner, with cumulative effect for one year. The first respondent Labour Court had also considered the fact that there was no allegation or charge against the second respondent employee in the records relating to his past service. Since, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the second respondent employee was disproportionate in nature, it had modified the punishment imposed on the second respondent. As such, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to set aside the award of the Labour Court, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, dated 15.12.2004, made in I.D.No.158 of 2003. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 1 cc To Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi, Advocate, SR.18256. 1 cc To Mr.V.Manisekaran, Advocate, SR.18250. Writ Petition No.9622 of 2006 RSN(CO) RVL 31.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/