The Labour Court had the jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the punishment as it was incidental to the reference. The technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering substantial justice.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.19054 of 2011 dated 23.11.2012 in allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein challenging the award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.25 of 2008 dated 17.01.2011. In the said award, the Labour Court has set aside the order of discharge passed against the appellant herein and modified the punishment as compulsory retirement and consequently directed the Management/first respondent herein to disburse the terminal benefits of the appellant.

2. Following are the brief facts that arise for consideration in this writ appeal:

(a) The appellant was employed as Assistant Shed Master under the first respondent Management with effect from 08.08.1966. He was discharged from service by an order dated 20.04.1983 on the ground of unauthorised absence from 19.09.1982. Challenging the said order of discharge, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 02.04.1991 and the said appeal was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant did not prefer any further appeal or any other legal proceedings.

(b) However, he made a representation on 15.03.2002, seeking for reinstatement with full benefits. The said request was rejected by the Management stating that the same cannot be accepted as the appellant attained the age of retirement on 30.09.1990 itself, even assuming that he was not discharged from service. Thereafter, the appellant made several representations and finally made a request on 07.03.2003, seeking for grant of pension and other retirement benefits. Though the first respondent rejected the said request, the appellant made repeated representations on 24.11.2003 and 12.03.2004, seeking pension and other retirement benefits.

(c) The appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14736 of 2005 seeking direction to the Management to disburse the terminal and pensionary benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.4.2005 with liberty to the appellant to raise industrial dispute in respect of his claim for the terminal benefits. Thereafter, the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer. The said official submitted his failure report on 20.02.2008. Pursuant to the failure report, the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, referred the dispute on 15.5.2008 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai and the same was taken on file in I.D.No.25 of 2008.

(d) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'Labour Court') found that the discharge of the appellant was not fair and proper and the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Consequently, the Labour Court directed the first respondent Management to disburse the terminal benefits of the appellant treating the appellant as retired from service on compulsory retirement. Aggrieved against the said Award, the first respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19054 of 2011.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 23.11.2012 by holding that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction as the modification of punishment of discharge into one of compulsory retirement was beyond the scope of reference. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed before this Court.

4. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the reference made to the Labour Court cannot be decided in isolation without considering the correctness or otherwise of the order of punishment and giving a finding on that issue as well. The Labour Court was justified in considering the correctness of the order of punishment, as such power is very much available under section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in order to find out as to whether the appellant is entitled for terminal benefits or not. While considering the main issue, incidentally, the Labo