IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 09..6..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 11818 of 1998 The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division – II) Ltd. Formerly known as (Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd.) Periyamilaguparai Thiruchirapallai-620 001 .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tiruchirapalli 2. V. Yuvaraj .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent passed in I.D. No. 34 of 1997 dated 11.12.1997 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Parthiban For Respondent : Mr. A. Saravanan No.2 1st Respondent : Court O R D E R Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition is directed against the Award order of the first respondent Labour Court dated 11.12.1997 made in I.D. No. 34 of 1997. 3. The petitioner is the Management. Parties in this writ petition are referred to as the Management and workman. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The brief facts leading to the industrial dispute are as follows: The second respondent was working as a Conductor in the erstwhile Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation w.e.f. 22.3.1987. His last drawn salary was Rs. 3794/-. It was stated that on 17.10.1995, he came to the depot around 10.20 pm in a drunken condition and misbehaved with the security guard and because of his conduct, there was loss of revenue to the Corporation. He was given a charge-memo dated 20.12.1995 to that effect. Subsequently, a domestic enquiry was conducted. He was not given the basic document and none of the material witnesses were examined. No medical evidence was produced. The Enquiry Officer, by his finding dated 16.9.1996, held that the petitioner came to the depot in a drunken condition. But the other allegation that he behaved in a disorderly manner was made on the basis of presumption. A second show cause notice was given to the second respondent and after getting his explanation, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 02.12.1996. Since his appeals to the higher authorities were not fruitful, he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Trichy. On getting a failure report, he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. 5. The matter was taken on file by the first respondent Labour Court as I.D. No. 34 of 1997. The workman filed one document marked as Ex. W.1. The Management filed 15 documents and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.15. No oral evidence was let in by both sides. The Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence, passed the Award dated 11.12.1997 impugned in this writ petition. 6. The Labour Court though held that the workman came to the depot in a drunken condition but the other charges were held to be not proved. It also took into account the past record of the workman. Since there was no evidence that the workman had misbehaved with the other workers, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of offence. It also held that when the workman came to the depot, he was not on duty and the next morning, he went on duty as usual and in that view of the matter, it directed the reinstatement of the workman with 75% of the backwages. 7. The writ petition was admitted on 11.8.1998 and interim stay was granted. Subsequently, it was modified by directing the Management to pay 12% interest for every six months on Rs. 60,000/- to be kept separately by them. Further, they were also directed to pay the workman Rs. 3793/- every month from the date of writ petition till the disposal of the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The Management, in order to avoid the monthly payment to be made in terms of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, 'I.D. Act'], restored the workman in to service w.e.f. 16.12.1998 and he is now working for the last ten years. 9. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that coming to a work place in a drunken condition itself is a serious misconduct. Therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Thirumangalam Co.operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and another [1992 (II) L.L.J. 886]. The said decision arose out of an appeal filed under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and the appellate authority under that provision is not empowered to interfere with the quantum of punishment in case he holds that the charges are proved. 10. Thereafter, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in C. Muthumanickam v. Management of Kongarar Spinners Ltd., Udumalpet and another [2004 (3) L.L.N. 583]. The facts involved in that case were slightly different. There, the workman, who was to attend his night shift, came in an intoxicated condition and when he was asked to leave the premises, he abused his superiors and while going out, he threatened the security guard. Thereafter, he absented himself for two more days. Therefore, when the worker raised a dispute, the Labour Court found that he was guilty of misconduct and ordered payment of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It is only when the worker challenged the discretion exercised by the Labour Court, the Award was upheld by this Court and it was held that there was no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act 11. Therefore, the above two decisions will have no bearing in the present case since the Labour Court had exercised its proper discretion and interfered with the quantum of punishment by exercising its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. While doing so, the Labour Court took into account that the workman was not on his duty hours when he was found drunk and there was no evidence of his misbehaviour with any personnel in the depot and that the next morning, he had discharged his duties in the route allotted to him. Thereafter, the learned counsel submitted that the workman, even during the pendency of the writ petition, while restored to service, had committed another misconduct on 19.01.2007 and an enquiry is pending. 12. In the present case, this Court is not concerned with the new charge framed against the workman and this Court is only concerned with the legality or propriety of the Award passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Labour Court which is impugned in the writ petition. In the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court is very limited and the impugned Award does not come within the parameters indicated for exercising such a power. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner Management is directed to comply with the Award within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gri To The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tiruchirapalli +1cc to Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate Sr 27706 DM (CO) km/16.6. W.P. No. 11818 of 1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/