JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.40/2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem and quash the award dated 14.10.2019 passed therein and declare that the order of dismissal dated 26.4.2006 passed by the respondent as illegal and further direct the respondent herein to pay the petitioner all the monetary and other attendant/consequential benefits treating him as if he had continued in service without any interruption.)

1. The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated 14.10.2019 passed in I.D.No.40 of 2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem.

2. By a charge memo dated 08.10.2005, the petitioner, who had served as a Driver in the respondent corporation, was charged of having committed misconduct of rash and negligent driving, causing an accident, whereby 4 persons had died and 31 persons were injured. The petitioner had given his explanation to the charge memo on 17.10.2005, based on which, an enquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against the petitioner, were held to be proved. Based on the proven charges, a second show cause notice dated 13.03.2006 was issued.

3. In this background, the petitioner was originally imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f 29.04.2006. When the punishment was challenged before the Labour Court, Salem in ID No.40 of 2007, an award came to be passed on 20.04.2009, whereby the petitioner was directed to be reinstated back into service with continuity of service and with 50% of the backwages.

4. Challenging the punishment, when the management had filed the writ petition before this Court in WP No.25826 of 2010, this Court by its order dated 21.02.2018 had found that the Labour Court had come to the conclusion without relying upon the evidences before it. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for passing a fresh award. The relevant portion of the order of this Court reads as follows:

“10. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the findings of the Labour Court has to be held as invalid and perverse and legally unacceptable. In the said circumstances, this Court has no other option except to remit the matter back to the first respondent Labour Court for fresh consideration of the dispute between the petitioner Corporation and the second respondent employee. The first respondent - Labour Court is directed to evaluate the evidence which was made available during the domestic enquiry and come to a definite conclusion whether the employee was given fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry and whether the findings of the domestic enquiry was based on the legally acceptable evidence. If the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the charges were not proved in the domestic enquiry, it may proceed to allow the party to lead fresh evidence in support of the respective case of the employee as well as the Management and pass a considered award.

11. The first respondent - Labour Court is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date when the matter is restored to its file. It is made clear that in the interregnum, the second respondent employee is not entitled to any monetary benefits. In the said circumstances, the award of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No.40 of 2007 dated 20.04.2009, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for passing a fresh award in terms of the above direction. It is also made clear that the Labour Court is not to be influenced by any observation made by this Court.”

5. In this background, the Labour Court, Salem had passed a preliminary award on 10.08.2019, whereby, it was held that the Domestic enquiry was vitiated and therefore, the management was given an opportunity to prove their case. Accordingly, the present impugned award dated 14.10.2019 came to be passed.

6.