The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of grounds for interference and the unreasonable delay by the management in challenging the award.

ORDER :

(MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.)

All these three writ petitions are between the same parties and in connection with the award dated 06.10.2015 passed in I.D.No.79 of 2014 on the file of the learned Labour Court, Madurai and as such all the three matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.1. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

2.2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the first writ petition viz., W.P.(MD) No.18668 of 2018.

2.3. The petitioner herein while working as Driver in the respondent-Corporation caused an accident resulting in death of a person, who was riding TVS 50 moped. In view of the same, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and after conducting an enquiry into the matter, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 02.02.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) and the same was taken on record as I.D.No.79 of 2014 by the learned Labour Court, Madurai.

2.4. The learned Labour having examined the matter in detail and in an elaborate manner, in all framed three issues for consideration, which read as under:

“1. Whether the order of dismissal is justified?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of service, ackwages and other attendant benefits?

3. To what other reliefs, the petitioner is entitled?”

2.5. Issue Nos.1 and 2 were considered together and the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, but his negligence was also responsible to the accident to some extent. Having arrived at such conclusion, the learned Labour Court felt that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is too severe and exercised its discretion under Section 11A of the I.D.Act and passed Award dated 06.10.2015 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages and other benefits. The said award was passed on 6^th October, 2015. However, the said award was neither questioned nor given effect to by the respondent-Corporation till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2018. It was thereafter, the petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD) No.18668 of 2018 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Management to pay wages and other benefits payable for the period from 06.10.2015, i.e., the date of award till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, that is 30.04.2018 besides by settlement of terminal benefits for treating the entire period from 07.04.1986 to 30.04.2018 as his service period together with interest and to pay pension. It was only after the petitioner herein filed the said writ petition on 24^th August, 2018, the respondent-Management has come forward to file W.P.(MD) No.20386 of 2018 on 19^th September, 2018 challenging the award dated 06.10.2015. It was thereafter, the petitioner herein filed yet another writ petition vide W.P.(MD) No.5999 of 2019 challenging the award dated 06.10.2015 insofar as holding that the petitioner was also negligent to some extent for the accident and denying the backwages to the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the impugned award discloses that the learned Labour Court has taken into consideration every aspect of the matter besides taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court rendered under identical circumstances. The learned Labour Court also have taken into consideration the fact that the person who died in the accident in question was found to be in drunken condition, as the same is evident from the medical reports. However, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is also negligent to some extent. Having arrived at such conclusion, the learned Labour Court exercised its discretion und