The appointing authority has discretion in imposing punishment, but the court may interfere if the punishment is disproportionate to the charges, and may modify the punishment or remit the case to the appointing authority.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the award dated 28.04.2009 made in I.D. No. 67 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the award dated 22.04.2009 made in I.D. No. 70 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court and quash the same.

1. Challenging the Award passed by the first respondent, in I.D. Nos. 67 and 70 of 2005, dated 28.04.2009 and 22.04.209, respectively, these Writ Petitions have been filed.

2. Since the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are similar, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondents were working as Slider in the petitioner Management from the year 1983 and 1984, onwards, respectively. Their last drawn salary is Rs. 5,203/- and Rs. 5,165/- respectively. While so, disciplinary action was initiated against the second respondents alleging that they are defaming the reputation of the petitioner management and its officials. The second respondents/workmen have submitted their respective explanation. Since their explanation was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, after hearing the second respondents and the petitioner management, has submitted his report that the charges levelled against the second respondents were found to be proved and based on which, the petitioner management has passed the order of dismissal from their employment against the second respondents.

4. As against the order of dismissal, the second respondents have raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.D. Nos. 67 and 70 of 2005, respectively. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli, by considering the gravity of charges levelled against the second respondents and the punishment imposed by the petitioner management, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondents into service. Challenging the award passed by the first respondent, the present Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner Management.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that pending these Writ Petitions, the second respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 10146 of 2010 was reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and he has also retired from service in December 2020. Hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in W.P. (MD) No. 10146 of 2010.

6. In respect of W.P. (MD) No. 10147 of 2010 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to the dismissal from service, the second respondent has got gainful employment as LIC agent and with regard to the payment of wages as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the second respondent has filed a Miscellaneous Petition in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2011 in W.P. (MD) No. 10147 of 2010, for payment of 17B wages and this Court has also granted an order directing the petitioner management to pay 17B wages. However, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Management filed an appeal before this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 501 of 2011. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court, by judgment, dated 06.09.2011, allowed appeal by holding that the second respondent was gainfully employed in the LIC and denied payment of wages. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court may modify the award of the Labour Court into one as compulsory retirement without back wages.

7. The learned Counsel for second respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contending that even though the second respondent was an LIC agent, he has received only a meagre amount and therefore, it cannot be termed that the second respondent was in g