The discretionary power of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act should be exercised judiciously and only when the punishment imposed by the management is found to be unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.:— The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited/Management is the writ petitioner. Challenge made herein is against the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 172 of 2014 dated 25.05.2015. Through the impugned award, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination of the service of the second respondent and directed the Management to reinstate him with continuity of service, however without backwages. The Labour Court also ordered that the second respondent is not entitled to leave salary, bonus and annual increment during the period in which he was not working.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is as follows:

The second respondent was appointed as Conductor at the petitioner Corporation in 1984. He was found to be chronically remitting the cash collection belatedly. On 01.04.2009, the second respondent while discharging his duty as a Conductor, failed to remit the amount before 13.30 hours on the same day. He had remitted that cash at the next day at his relish. Thus, there was a short misappropriation of collection till 02.04.2009. The second respondent did not inform or instruct with regard to the delayed payment. In a similar fashion, he had remitted the cash collection belatedly on 64 occasions, thereby enjoying the short holding of the amount for short period. He also stayed on an unauthorized absence on 9 occasions, resulting in a gross negligence of work. The petitioner Management issued a charge memo dated 26.04.2009 for the charges relating to the belated remittance of cash collection on 01.04.2009. He was also placed under suspension. The second respondent submitted a reply on 24.04.2009. He was restored to service on 05.05.2009. Being dissatisfied with the reply given by the second respondent, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry in strict adherence of the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer filed his report on 06.01.2010, finding that all the charges were proved. A second show cause notice dated 02.06.2010 was issued on the second respondent, seeking for his explanation for the provisional conclusion arrived by the Management for dismissing him from service. The second respondent sent a reply. However, he was dismissed from service on 20.07.2010. Since an industrial dispute was pending at that time, before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation, the petitioner Management filed an Approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Approval Petition was allowed on 31.10.2010. The second respondent challenged the order of dismissal by raising the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 172 of 2014 before the Labour Court. Though the Labour Court was pleased to hold that the enquiry was fair and proper; that the charges were proved and that the incidents occurred on 64 occasions stood proved, however was pleased to hold that the charges and the punishment did not commensurate. Accordingly, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment by exercising its power under Section 11A of the said Industrial Disputes Act. The decision of the Labour Court is bad in the eye of law. The Labour Court has not exercised the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11A judiciously. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment of dismissal, having found that the second respondent had repeatedly committed similar delinquencies on 64 occasions. She further pointed out that apart from committing similar delinquency on 64 times in the past and suffering minor punishment on all those occasions, the second respondent also committed other misconduct such as unauthorized absence on six times and dereliction of duty on nine times and suffered punishment on all those occasions. She further pointed out that merely because