Point of law; Suspension of service - workman herein also contributed the events led to his dismissal. Further it could be gathered that the workman herein remained out of service and contributed nothing to the industry during the period of dismissal. In such scenario, the normal rule that when reinstatement is ordered, it should follow with full back wages, need not be followed as such and departure therefrom as discussed herein above is permissible. In the case on hand, the Tribunal awarded only 25% of the back wages without assigning reasons thereof.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The 1st respondent in the writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 5496/2005] has filed this intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 30.11.2016 rendered by a learned Single Judge, in the above writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petitioner sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ quashing the Ext.P2 as far as it does not grant the full back wages to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order directing the respondent to disburse the full backwages for the period mentioned in ID No. 44/2000.”

2. Heard Smt. Latha Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, 1st respondent in the writ petition, Sri. P.K. Ravisankar, learned Counsel appearing for R3 herein (workman).

3. The parties in this appeal are referred to as 'workman' and the 'management' for convenience.

4. The precise case in W.P. (C) No. 5496/2005 is that, while the workman was working under the management, he was suspended from service on 10.10.1998, without assigning reasons. Thereafter, false allegations were levelled against him by issuing charge sheet dated 26.10.1998. The explanation given by the workman was not accepted by the management and domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the matter was considered by the Deputy Labour Officer, Thrissur, no compromise reached and finally the matter was referred to industrial Tribunal.

5. After holding enquiry, the Industrial Tribunal as per award dated 7.1.2002 held that the dismissal of the workman was not justifiable and therefore, he was liable to be reinstated in service with 25% back wages and continuity of service.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal to the extent of granting 25% of back wages alone, the workman approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 5496/2005, wherein the impugned judgment was delivered granting 50% of the back wages.

7. While challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-management, reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum to unsettle the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances involved in this case. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the in-disciplined behaviour of the workman and the learned Single Judge granted 50% backwages under the wrong impression that the management allotted cabin to the workman opposite to the latrine. Though there was change of seat, there was disobedience from the part of the workman in complying the official sanctions of the management. Further more, the workman directly sent letters to the Managing Director using arrogant and harsh language. Further it is submitted that the workman was reinstated in service with 25% of back wages and continuity in service in compliance with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Thus the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, is the submission of the learned counsel for the management.

8. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge holding that the workman is entitled to at least 50% of the back wages as against 25% back wages awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Controverting the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the management, learned Counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the learned Single Judge exercised discretion in the matter of grant of 50% backwages in favour of the workman and said discretion is not liable to be interfered at all.

10. We have gone through the judgment impugned. In paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that in the scenario involved, the workman deserved punishment and he could not be left with impunity as otherwise it would create bad precedent in the establishment. However, the learned Single Judge decided