1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.1608 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Regional Office, Sipcot Complex, Tuticorin-8, represented by its Regional Manager. ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. 2. J.Jayanthi ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award of the first respondent herein dated 28.04.2010 made in I.D.No.59 of 2005 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondents: Ms.D.Geetha for R.2 O R D E R The petitioner viz., the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has come up with the above writ petition challenging an award passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. 2. Heard Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D.Geetha, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 3. The husband of the second respondent was working as a Watchman in the petitioner Corporation. He died in harness on 06.11.1999. After his demise, the second respondent was appointed on compassionate ground as a sweeper. She joined duty on 01.06.2001. 4. After about 18 months, the Corporation issued a charge memo dated 13.12.2002, alleging that the petitioner produced a bogus certificate and secured employment. A domestic enquiry followed and a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed on 31.03.2003. 5. Unfortunately, the second respondent filed an appeal to the Chairman cum Managing Director. The Appellate Authority issued a show cause notice for enhancement of penalty and after getting the explanation of the second respondent, the Appellate Authority passed an order of removal from service. 6. Challenging her removal from service, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.N.59 of 2005. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli passed an award on 28.04.2010 holding that the domestic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, but exercising the discretion under Section 11(A) and modifying the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and ordering her in reinstatement with back wages. Aggrieved by the said award, the Corporation has come up with the above writ petition. 7. It is seen from the award passed by the Labour Court that the Labour Court found the charge against the petitioner to have been proved in the domestic enquiry. But while considering the question of quantum of penalty in terms of Section 11(A), the Labour Court took into account the following extenuating the factors viz., (i) that the original certificate produced in the first instance was not by the second respondent, but by her relative; (ii) that the second certificate which was the genuine one, was actually produced by the second respondent herself and not found out by any investigation or enquiry on the part of the Corporation; (iii) that the conduct of the second respondent in producing a genuine certificate on her own accord disclosed that she did not have any intention to cheat the Corporation; (iv) that at any date, the second respondent secured appointment on compassionate ground upon the death of her husband; and (v) that she was left in the lurch, after the death of her husband with three children to support. 8. The above findings recorded by the Labour Court under issue No.2, would show that the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, though approved by the Labour Court, was diluted to a great extent by the Labour Court. This is perhaps the reason why the disciplinary authority himself thought fit to impose only the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year. In these circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11 (A) especially after finding that the charge itself stood diluted by various factors indicated above, cannot be interfered in the writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR No.39699 + 1 cc to M/s.D/Geetha, Advocate, SR No.39631 W.P.(MD)No. 1608 of 2011 14.11.2011 ssl RJ/29.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/