The court has the power to modify the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority when it is not justified, and the punishment should be proportionate to the charges against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent connected with I.D.No.32 of 2002 dated 04.12.2002 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages into the service of the second respondent with all attendant benefits.)

1. Seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.32 of 2002, dated 04.12.2002 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages into the service of the second respondent with all attendant benefits, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as ''Driver'' on ''daily wage basis'' on 05.09.1992 in Anna Sathya Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri, now called as T.N.State Transport Corporation Division. On 01.07.1993, the petitioner was made permanent and while in duty, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent on 06.10.1997 and from 20.10.1997, for which he was issued with a charge memo on 17.11.1997 by the respondent Corporation. For the charge memo, the petitioner did not submit any reply, instead he had submitted a leave letter, dated 23.05.1998.

3. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation conducted a domestic enquiry and upon completion of enquiry, the petitioner was terminated from service, vide order of dismissal dated 26.08.1998. Therefore, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Krishnagiri. Since no settlement was arrived between the parties, the Labour Officer submitted his Conciliation Failure report on 27.11.2001.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an application in I.D.No.32 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Salem. The learned Judge had held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the respondent Corporation is not justified and hence, modified the punishment. An Award dated 04.12.2002 was passed by the Labour Court, by which the petitioner was reinstated back into service, but without continuity of service, backwages and other benefits. Aggrieved against the said Award, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent Corporation had accepted his leave letter, dated 23.05.1998 but failed to reinstate the petitioner back into service. Without considering the said fact, the Labour Court has passed the Award, which deserves to be interfered by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the Award in I.D.No.32 of 2002 dated 04.12.2002.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for his duty on 06.10.1997 and from 20.10.1997 onwards, which has caused dislocation of the work of the respondent Corporation. In this regard, based upon the report sent by the Controller of the respondent Corporation, the General Manager had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.11.1997. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation had conducted a domestic enquiry, wherein the petitioner has also stated that during the course of enquiry, that he did not want to cross examine the witness.

7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to examine the witness, but he has not used the same. Also, he had pointed out the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was absent for duty on the relevant date and has not stated proper reasons for his absence. The respondent Corporation, being not satisfied with the reasons cited by the petitioner, has passed the order of termination of the petitioner from service. However, the Labour Court, taking a lenient view on the workman, has set aside the termination order and ordered the Management to reinstate him into serv