JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the award dated 31.03.2015 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.63 of 2014 insofar as denying 75% of the back wages and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to give denied 75% of the wages to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, award cost.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in I.D.No.63 of 2014 dated 31.03.2015 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. The workman herein, who was employed as a Branch Post Master at Marudhavallipalayam Branch Post Office, Vellore Postal Division, was served with a charge-memo dated 19.03.2003 by the Superintendent of Post Offices (Management), alleging that he had failed to record the deposits collected from the savings bank account of two depositors, namely, Smt. Thangammal and Smt. Rajammal. On enquiry, both the charges were held as not proved.

1.2. However, the Management had differed from the views of the enquiry officer and by an order dated 31.10.2011, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the workman.

1.3. In the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [CGIT], Chennai, the Management was directed to reinstate the workman into service with 25% back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, through its Award dated 31.03.2015.

1.4. Aggrieved against the same, the Management had preferred the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.32959 of 2015 and challenging the denial of 75% of the back wages, the workman had filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.18785 of 2015. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of through this common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr. V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Panel counsel for the Management contended that the stand of proof required in the departmental proceedings is on a preponderance of probability of facts and thus drew attention of this Court to the evidences let in the departmental enquiry which were relied upon by the CGIT and submitted that the evidence of these witnesses establishes the charges, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the CGIT.

4. On the other hand, Ms.Kaviya, learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that re-appreciation of the evidences before the enquiry officer cannot be done in a Writ Petition. She further submitted that the CGIT had not assigned any reasons for denying 75% of the back wages and therefore he is entitled for full back wages. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the decision of a Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of The Management of Addison and Company Ltd., Chennai V. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and another passed in W.A.No.1946 of 2019.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. The entire submission of the learned Senior Panel counsel for the Management is to the effect that the CGIT had not properly appreciated the evidences let in before the enquiry officer, particularly, the oral statements of the account holders namely, Smt.Thangammal and Smt. Rajammal. The scope of interference to an Award of the CGIT or a Labour Court has been consistently dealt with in various judgments of this Court, including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of The Management, M/s. British Airways, Haryana & Another V. The Presiding Officer, The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai & Another passed in W.P.No.13603 of 2016 & batch etc., dated 08.02.2022, I had an occasion to consider such a scope, by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as fo