The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair conduct of domestic enquiry, proportionality of punishment, and entitlement to retirement benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer IN W.P.No.23314 of 2012: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in I.D.No.87 of 2007 dated 08.06.2011 and to quash the order to the extent of granting the retirement benefits for the service period to the 1st respondent as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

IN W.P.No.19529 of 2013: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned award dated 08.06.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits from the date of his dismissal 22.12.2005.)

Common Order:

1. These Writ Petitions are filed by the workman as well as the Management, as against I.D.No.87 of 2007 dated 08.06.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, whereby, the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.19529 of 2013, to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits was dismissed and ordered only for retirement benefits for his service period.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19529 of 2013 was working as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division. On 03.03.2005, when the petitioner was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 49 N 0970, the Checking Inspector had conducted inspection. At the time of inspection, it was found that one of the male passenger was not in possession of a ticket. On enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner has not issued ticket to the said passenger, after receiving the ticket fare of Rs.11/- from him. Further, on examining the cash bag of the petitioner, it was found that there was a shortage of Rs.36.50/-, including the ticket amount.

3. In continuance to the above incident, the Checking Inspector gave a complaint dated 03.03.2005 as a result of which, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.03.2005. Later, a charge memo, dated 11.04.2005 was issued to the petitioner. In reply to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.04.2005. Being not satisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the respondent Management against the petitioner.

4. On 19.07.2005, domestic enquiry was conducted and on 22.07.2005, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the workman stands ''proved''. The Enquiry Officer served the enquiry findings on 25.07.2005 and the workman submitted his explanation, which was also found to be not satisfactory by the respondent Management. Hence, second show cause notice dated 01.10.2005 was issued and the worker had submitted his explanation on 10.10.2005. As there was no valid reasons to modify or to cancel the proposed punishment, the workman was dismissed by the respondent Management by an order dated 22.12.2005.

5. Aggrieved against the same, the workman filed an appeal on 04.01.2006 and the respondent Management, considered his appeal and passed a detailed order, rejecting the claim of the workman. Thereafter, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the 3rd respondent in I.D.No.87 of 2007. The Labour Court, after considering the merits held that the charges were proved and also the punishment of removal from service was justified and therefore, ordered only the retirement benefits for his service period. Challenging the said Award, the above Writ Petitions have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the workman contended that there was no proper consideration of the quantum of punishment, by applying the principle enunciated under the Industrial Disputes Act. She would submit that the allegation of misappropriation is without any basis and the statement given by the petitioner