Misconduct can be established outside the workplace if it brings disrepute to the management, and the Labour Court's reduction of punishment was found to be perverse.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS praying to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms. No. 364 dated 13-08-2014 issued by the 1st Respondent ordering criminal prosecution against the Petitioners for non implementation of the award dated 12-11-2009 passed by the 2nd Respondent in ID No. 43 of 2000 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 3rd Respondent from filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam against the Petitioners under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for non implementation of the award dated 12-11-2009 passed by the 2nd Respondent in ID No. 43 of 2000.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS praying to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 12-11-2009 passed by the 2nd Respondent in I.D. No. 43/2000 in so far it directs reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuity in service without payment of backwages and other attendant benefits from 01-9-1999 till the date of reinstatement and quash the same and consequently uphold the order dated 01-09-1999 issued by the Petitioner dismissing the 3rd Respondent from services of the Petitioner.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS praying to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 12.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 43/2000, quash the same in so far as depriving the petitioner full backwages and other attendant benefits and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner full backwages and other attendant benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of award in addition to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service already granted, award costs.

1. For the sake of convenient discussion, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13181 of 2015 is described as Workman and the 1st petitioner in the other two Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 26781 & 27063/2014 are described as Company/Management and the 1st respondent in W.P. Nos. 26781 & 27063/2014 is referred to as the Government.

2. This Court heard the submissions made by either side learned counsels and perused the materials available on records.

3. The workman was employed in the Spinning department of the Company. He attempted to commit rape on a 40-year-old married woman staff on 03.10.1998 in a broad daylight at Achampalayam Village, which is located close to the factory premises. On 05.10.1998, a complaint was filed by the victim against the workman at Annur Police Station and an FIR also came to be registered in Crime No. 439/1998 under Section 354 of IPC.

4. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Annur, in C.C. No. 87/99. Pending enquiry, the workman was suspended from service on 06.10.1998. Charges have been framed against him under Clause 15(b), 15(9) and 15(39) of the certified standing orders applicable to the 3rd respondent in W.P. Nos. 26781 & 27063 of 2014. On 12.10.1998 the Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, informed the management that the workman was arrested and sent to judicial custody in Sub Jail, Avinashi.

5. An enquiry officer was appointed for conducting a domestic enquiry against the workman. After the conclusion of the enquiry, charges against the workman were proved and he was served with a show cause notice before imposition of punishment. On 01.09.1999 he was issued with an order of dismissal. The workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 43/2000 before the 2nd respondent on the following two grounds:

(i) the alleged offence was not committed within the premises of the 1st petitioner.

(ii) the alleged offence is not a misconduct within the purview of the certified standing orders.

6. The award came to be passed by the Labour Court by holding that the management has the power to impose punishment of d