JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the impugned award in I.D. No. 659 of 2005 dated 22.06.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages with continuity of service with all other attendant and consequential benefits as provided under law and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

1. The Award dated 22.06.2011 passed in I.D. No. 659 of 2005 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was employed with the 1st respondent Ashok Leyland Limited at Ennore, Chennai. He was working as a standby Machine Operator.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner joined in the services of the 1st respondent factory on 01.11.1996. The services of the writ petitioner was confirmed as a permanent employee on 15.09.1998. The petitioner was a regular employee from 01.11.1996 to 14.11.2003. On 14.11.2003, the petitioner was arrested by the Police during night hours and he was remanded on account of registration of a criminal complaint before the Tiruporur Police Station. On 18.11.2003, the 1st respondent Management sent a notice to the writ petitioner's residence directing him to report for duty on or before 25.11.2003, which was returned as undelivered. Again on 27.12.2003, the respondent company sent a reminder letter to the writ petitioner and the letter was sent through the Inspector of Police, Thiruporur and the Police Inspector received the letter on 31.12.2003. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner failed to report for duty, the 1st respondent Management, on 06.01.2004, treated the writ petitioner as ‘left the services’ on account of his absence from 14.11.2003 to 06.01.2004.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that on 30.01.2004, the petitioner could able to secure bail and was released from Prison. Thereafter, on 01.02.2004, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent Management for reporting to work. The Security personnel at the gates of the 1st respondent factory refused to permit the petitioner to enter into the factory premises. On 11.02.2005, the petitioner issued legal notice through his counsel with a request to reinstate him and pay the dues towards salary, back wages and other allowances.

5. It is contended that the letter sent by the writ petitioner reveals that in the event of not reinstating his benefits is to be settled. The 1st respondent Management sent a reply through their counsel on 19.02.2005, stating that the petitioner himself acquired to cessation of employment and was seeking settlement of dues. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent filed a counter and based on the failure report, the dispute was raised under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Meanwhile, the criminal case registered against the writ petitioner in Sessions Case No. 631 of 2005 ended with an order of acquittal on 06.10.2007. The Labour Court passed an Award on 22.06.2011, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for reinstatement and awarded compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner is of an opinion that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner nor a charge sheet was issued or an enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the discharge of services of the writ petitioner by the 1st respondent Management is untenable. This apart, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement. In support of the said con