The punishment of dismissal for repeated and deliberate misconducts is justified, and the Labour Court's direction for reinstatement without backwages is beyond the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. W.P.No.28553 of 2003 has been filed by the management viz. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) Limited praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Award of the first respondent viz. Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.565 of 1998 dated 24.7.2002.

W.P.No.28071 of 2005 has been filed by the workman R.K.Ramasamy praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the portion of the award of the second respondent viz. Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.565 of 1998, dated 24.7.2002, depriving the petitioner's backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits and to direct the first respondent management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and other consequential benefits.

2. The award passed by the Labour Court clearly held that four departmental enquiries were held against the workman by the management viz. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) but the workman did not participate in two enquiries and in the third enquiry, though appeared, he failed to effectively participate in the enquiry. On that basis, it has been clearly held that the charge of misconducts found against the workman have been proved and imposed the punishment against the workman. However, it has been observed by the Labour Court that severe punishment of dismissal from service is not correct. On that basis, the Labour Court passed an award directing the management to reinstate the workman as fresh appointee without any backwages and continuity of service and without any attendant benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the said Award, the management filed writ petition in W.P.No.28553 of 2003 challenging it on the ground that the Labour Court has passed the award in clear violation of the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman also aggrieved with a portion of the award, filed W.P.No.28071 of 2005 challenging only that portion of the award refusing to give backwages and continuity of service. Therefore, with the consent of both parties, both writ petitions are taken up together. For the sake of convenience, the management is referred as writ petitioner in W.P.No.28553 of 2003 and the workman R.K.Ramasamy is referred as "workman" hereafter.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are given as under:- The second respondent workman in W.P.No.28553 of 2003 joined the management viz. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) as driver on 12.8.1982. While the workman was driving a vehicle bearing Registration No.TML 7539 on his trip from Salem to Madurai on 16.6.1989, Checking Inspector checked the vehicle at a place called Gandhigram at about 4.15 pm and found that the second respondent workman was neither in uniform nor in possession of the driving licence.

5. Therefore, when the checking inspector questioned the workman viz. Driver the reason for not wearing the uniform and not keeping his driving licence, the second respondent alleged to have shouted at him in a bad manner. Hence the Checking Inspector submitted a report. On the basis of the report, the writ petitioner in WP.No.28553 of 2003 viz. Management issued a charge sheet dated 6.7.1989 charging him for his misconduct under 19(1L) and 19(1B) of the Standing Orders which is extracted as under:

"(i) that he was not wearing uniform and not possession of the driving licence at the time of checking on his duty, and that he acted in an irresponsible manner towards the Corporation Officials when they questioned about the matter. He was also charge sheeted, for his irresponsible and callous behaviour with the officials during checking and also for bringing bad name to the Corporation among the public."

On receipt of the said charge memo, the second respondent workman submitted his explanation on 27.7.1989 and finding his explanation not satisfactory, the petitioner management ordered domestic enquiry to enquire into the charges. Thereupon