JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the award of the first respondent dated 04.07.2016 in I.D.No.189 of 2013 and to quash the same insofar as it has not granted the normal relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service with other benefits and to substitute the above relief in the award.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, who joined the second respondent Company as a Driver, was promoted to the post of Supervisor on 25.11.2009. It is the case of the Management that on 19.08.2010, some scrap materials, along with garbages, were transported out of the Company, for which the petitioner had received Rs.1500/- per load towards removal of such scrap materials. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 28.01.2011 for the delinquency and by an order dated 12.02.2011, he was discharged from services, on the ground that the Management had lost confidence on him for his act of colluding in stealing the Company’s properties. In the dispute raised by the petitioner in I.D.No.189 of 2013 before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”], the Labour Court had held in its impugned award dated 04.07.2016, that the Management had failed to prove the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner also failed to establish victimization for his union activities as alleged by him, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits. The workman has challenged this award.

3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Labour Court had held that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner has not been proved, the Court ought to have ordered for reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that when the Management loses its confidence and trust in the workman, the termination of the petitioner is to be regarded as immune from challenge. In support of their contentions, both the learned counsels relied on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which I shall deal with later.

4. The Labour Court in its impugned award had held that, the termination of the petitioner as a measure of punishment for the alleged misconduct, without holding any enquiry or giving an opportunity to him to defend himself, is per se invalid. This apart, the Labour Court had taken into consideration the police complaint given by the Management, which was later withdrawn and held that merely because a complaint is given, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had permitted outsiders to remove the scrap from the Company by receiving money, particularly, when the Management had withdrawn the complaint. The oral evidence let in by the Management M.W.1 and M.W.2 were held to be insignificant since they were not eye-witnesses and two other eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, since not examined, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Management. It is in this background, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the Management had failed to prove the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.

5. Having held so, the Labour Court took into consideration of the plea of the petitioner of having been victimized for his union activities and held that the petitioner had failed to establish victimization. It had also observed that since the Management had lost faith in the petitioner for having charged him with theft, it would not be proper to direct reinstatement and consequently, awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, in lieu of reinstatement.

6. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase V. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in c