Discrimination in employment disputes, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.07.2011 in I.D.No.409 of 2001 passed by the first respondent in so far as depriving 50% of all benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of death of the petitioners- father and not giving the petitioners full terminal and other benefits including compassionate appointment, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay the petitioners all the remaining 50% benefits and also all the terminal and death benefits including compassionate appointment to the petitioners as if the petitioners- father died while he was in service, award costs.)

The relief sought by the petitioners in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.07.2011 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.409 of 2001 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay the petitioners 50% of all benefits i.e., from the date of dismissal to the date of death of the petitioners- father and also, all the terminal and death benefits including compassionate appointment to them as if their father died while he was in service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners is that their father viz., Mr.A.Kandasamy was working as a conductor in the second respondent corporation since 1981 onwards. During the year 1983, he was working at Pondicherry Depot of the second respondent Corporation and later, he was promoted as Depot President of ATP Union for Pondicherry Depot. On 07.07.1999, when the Bus in Route No.304 came to the Pondicherry Depot for filling diesel, the Branch Manager of Pondicherry Depot had asked one Mr.Natarajan, conductor to step down from the bus and not continue duty in Route No.304. The Branch Manager has deputed another conductor in the place of said Natarajan.

2.1. Due to the said act of the Branch Manager, on 09.07.1999, all other workmen in Puducherry Depot unanimously and spontaneously demanded him to give reason as to why the said Natarajan was denied to continue his duty. In support of said Natarajan, on the very same day, from 8.45 a.m onwards, all other workmen stopped plying the vehicles. While so, the petitioners- father being a Depot President had tried to solve this issue amicably. Therefore, he informed the Assistant Manager of the Depot that the workmen were in an agitated mode and they could be pacified, if the Branch Manager has come and explain them about the circumstances. At the same time, the Divisional Manager came to the Depot and told the workmen that the Branch Manager is on leave and the issue could be resolved when he resumes duty after his leave. Having been pacified with the assurance given by the Divisional Manager, the workmen gone back to their duty from 11.00 a.m on the said day.

2.2. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to the above incident, a Charge Memo dated 04.08.1999 was issued to the petitioners- father, in which, it was alleged that on 09.07.1999, the petitioners- father Kandasamy had prevented eight buses from being taken on trip in between 8.45 a.m to 11.00 a.m, in support of the injustice caused to said conductor Natarajan. In response to the said Charge Memo, the petitioners- father had submitted an explanation dated 16.09.1999, denying the charges framed against him and also, he had enclosed a letter which was jointly written by the workmen who were all present inside the Depot during the above incident was happened. In the said letter, all the workmen who participated in the agitation had stated that they stopped operating the buses on their own and no one had prevented them from taking the buses on trip. Thereafter, the second respondent corporation ordered for an enquiry and ultimately, vide order dated 08.02.2000 dismissed the petitioners- father