The main legal point established is the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal in awarding compensation instead of reinstatement in cases of proved charges and disproportionate punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the files of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.29/2008 and quash the award made therein dated 25.03.2011 insofar as the 1st respondent has denied and negatived the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service, with continuity of service, with back wages and other consequential benefits.)

1. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal made in I.D.No.29 of 2003 dated 25.03.2011 insofar as the negatived the claim for reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages and other consequential benefits.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jayaraman learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. Mr.S.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he had joined the services of the second respondent on 22.07.1997. On 12.12.2005, he was placed under suspension and on 31.12.2005, a charge memo was issued to him relating to incident which had taken place on 02.12.2005, 06.12.2005, 07.12.2005 and 12.12.2005. According to him, the entire disciplinary proceedings was victimization as the petitioner was elected as an Office Bearer on the formation of an Union to espouse the cause of the workman in the second respondent Union. The said Union, according to him, came into being on 11.12.2005 and the order of suspension was issued on 12.12.2005. He would submit that the entire charge memo has been only targeted against him even though the President of the Union had also allegedly taken part in the imputations which were made against the petitioner. He would further submit that the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings had not deposed anything against the petitioner.

4. He would vehemently contend that the Industrial Tribunal having found that the petitioner was entitled reinstatement ought to have reinstated him but on the contrary has directed the payment of compensation which is uncalled for. He would further plead that the Industrial Tribunal had also erred in holding that the disciplinary proceedings has been held in proper and fair manner and has misdirected it to hold that the charges have been proved. He further contended that the Model Standing Orders is applicable to the second respondent and Clause 17(4)(a) mandates that, a statement setting out in detail the reasons for suspension shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension. Therefore, he submitted that in the present case, even though the orders of suspension was dated 12.12.2005, the same was served upon him on 14.12.2005 and charge memo was issued only on 31.12.2005. In that context, he contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings stands has been vitiated.

5. That apart, he also while going through the charges, claimed the charges levelled against him were not serious and therefore, when the Industrial Tribunal had found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate ought to have reinstated him. The reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal in awarding the compensation is contrary to the well established principle of invoking Section 11(A) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947. The reason assigned by the Industrial Tribunal is that if the petitioner is reinstated, it would cause unrest in the respondent company is wholly unfounded when no such evidence was let in before it to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence, he sought interference with the orders of the Industrial Tribunal by setting aside the portion insofar it relates to negativating the claim for reinstatement and awarding compensation and consequentially direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.Jayaraman learned counsel appearing for second respondent would submit that even though they have not challenged the Award, as the charges are held to be proved