The Labour Court has wide power to consider and scrutinize the entire evidence, including the correctness of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, and has the discretion to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.366 of 2007 and quash its award dated 17.12.2013.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the award dated 17.12.2013 in I.D.No.366 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash so far the payment 50% back wages and direct the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner full back wages from February 1995 to 22.05.2009 together with interest from 23.05.2009 and full P.F. both management contribution and employee contribution with interest as per the P.F.Act, full gratuity as per the Act upto 22.05.2009 with further interest till the payment is effected.)

Common Order

1. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the Award passed in I.D.No.366 of 2007 dated 17.12.2013 on the file of the first respondent herein.

2. The Management challenging the Award in W.P.No.7909 of 2014 and the claimant challenging the Award in W.P.10776 of 2014, insofar as the payment of 50% back wages.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.7909 of 2014 is herein after called as “Management”. The petitioner in W.P.No.10776 of 2014 is herein after called as “Workman”.

4. The workman joined in the Management in the year 1974 as Grade-VI. Thereafter, he was promoted as staff Grade-V clerk in the year 1989. In the year 1989, he along with other co-workers had started “Padi Brakes India Employees Union” registered as CPT 998 of 1989 to promote the welfare of the workers. The workman was elected as General Secretary of the said Union. The Management is having its factory at Padi and engaged in manufacturing automobile brakes. According to the workman, they arranged for flag hoisting on 27.08.1990 and several trade union leaders were participated in the function. Therefore, the Management got upset and removed the flag post on the next day. Therefore, the Vice President of the Union preferred police complaint before the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station and FIR was registered on the complaint. In order to take revenge, the Management foisted a false case as if he had assaulted one G.Padmanabhan, a co-worker and abused him with filthy language.

5. Pursuant to the same, the workman was terminated from his service on 20.02.1991 after conducting domestic enquiry. The Management filed a petition seeking approval of the workman''s dismissal order as contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act (herein after called as “I.D. Act”) and the same was rejected on 02.08.1991. It was challenged by the Management before this Court and though the challenge was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13773 of 1991 and the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of dismissing the approval petition in W.A.No.835 of 1993 to remand the approval for fresh disposal. The Approval Authority approved the order of dismissal by an order dated 14.01.1991.

6. Once again the workman challenged the order of approval in W.P.No.1908 of 1995 and the same was allowed by an order dated 12.02.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the Management preferred W.A.No.413 of 1998 and the same was allowed by an order dated 04.01.2006. The workman preferred SLP as against the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in SLP No.11742 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed on 31.07.2006. Thereafter, the workman filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) II, under Section 2A of the I.D. Act. It was resisted by the Management on the ground that it is not maintainable as the workman filed similar petition and the same was dismissed during the year 1996. However, the said application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) II. Therefore, the workman raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.366 of 2007