JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award of the Hon'ble Tribunal made in I.D.No.782 of 2010 dated 20.04.2015, by the fourth respondent and to quash the same.)

1. The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing on 01.09.2021.

2. The writ petitioner is a Minority Aided School recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu. One Mr.Mohan Babu was appointed as a Sweeper (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) in a sanctioned and approved post in the petitioner Management School with effect from 01.10.1990. To a charge of unauthorized absence from 05.06.2007 till 21.08.2007, the workman tendered his apology, through his letter dated 03.09.2007 and sought for condonation of the absence. However, a charge memo dated 18.09.2007 came to be issued, for charges of unauthorized absence. The workman participated in the enquiry and once again tendered his apologies for the charges. Based on the enquiry report, the Management had proposed a punishment of 'termination of service' through a show cause notice dated 31.10.2007. In the said show cause notice, the workman was offered to go on voluntary retirement also. In his reply dated 09.11.2007, the workman had once again tendered his apologies and undertook to maintain good conduct in future. However, by an order dated 28.11.2007, the workman was removed from the services. As against the same, he had raised a dispute in I.D.No.782 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Chennai. Pending the dispute, the workman died on 04.07.2013 and the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were his legal heirs were substituted in his place. On 20.04.2015, the Labour Court had passed the impugned award by directing notional reinstatement of the workman together with continuity of service, backwages and all other monetary benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Management would submit that the deceased workman was an habitual unauthorized absentee and that on several previous occasions, he had unauthorizedly absented himself, which misconducts were condoned by the Management based on his letters of apologies and undertakings to maintain a good conduct in future. It is also his submission that even after the charges were proved in the enquiry, the deceased workman had not availed the opportunity to opt for voluntary retirement and therefore, there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In this background, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the impugned award passed in I.D.No.782 of 2010 by the Labour Court and submit that the award itself is a non speaking order, since there was no justification as to how the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the deceased workman was entitled for notional reinstatement with benefits.

4. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Management were justified in imposing the major punishment of termination from service and whether the award of the Labour Court granting notional reinstatement with benefits requires interference?

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased workman, was appointed on 01.10.1990 as a Sweeper and had put in about 17 years of experience till his termination. It is also not in dispute that prior to the impugned disciplinary action, the deceased workman had unauthorizedly absented himself on three occasions. In the present impugned departmental action, the deceased workman had replied to the show cause notice on 03.09.2007, wherein he had stated that his absence was due to the serious illness of his wife and that he had to take her to Andhra Pradesh for medical care. In the same reply, he had tendered his apologies and undertaken to maintain good conduct in future. Likewise, when the second show cause notice based on the enquiry report was issued, the deceased workman, in his reply dated 09.11.2007, ad