The necessity of conducting a proper domestic inquiry before dismissal is emphasized, and reliance on inadmissible electronic evidence is criticized.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

Heard.

2. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the same Petitioner Management challenging two awards passed by the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, on 18.12.2019, in I.D.Nos. 3/2018 and 2/2018. By these awards, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal orders passed against the two respondent workmen and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service. In respect of I.D.No.3/2018 (C. Kalaivasan), reinstatement was ordered without back wages, while in I.D.No.2/2018 (C. Karunanithi), reinstatement was ordered with 50% of the back wages.

3. When both matters came up for admission, this Court, on 28.02.2020, ordered notice of motion. Subsequently, when the matters were listed again on the same date, this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, granted a stay subject to the following condition:

“2. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that the charges levelled against the Workmen are serious in nature viz., assault on and wrongfully restraining the other employees and when such charges were proved before the Labour Court by letting in evidence, the impugned awards were passed on total misconception of the fact regarding the date of a particular incident as 16.11.2016, when the complaint filed under Ex.M5 would show that such incident took place on 19.11.2016 only. Therefore, he submitted that based on such misconception, the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the orders of punishment. He also submitted that the Labour Court has not given any finding regarding the incidents took place on other two days, even though the Management has proved the same by letting in evidence.

3. He also fairly submitted that in the event, the respondent files an affidavit before this Court in compliance of the requirement contemplated under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner Management is willing to pay the last drawn wages to the respondents/Workmen, during the pendency of these writ petitions.

3. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and the undertaking given as referred supra, there will be an order of interim stay of the impugned award for a period of three weeks. Post the writ petitions after three weeks.”

4. Unaware of the order passed by this Court, the respondents in both writ petitions filed two miscellaneous petitions seeking last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Specifically, C. Kalaivasan filed WMP No. 23171 of 2020, and C. Karunanithi filed WMP No. 23188 of 2020, accompanied by supporting affidavits stating that they had been out of employment for over four years and were not gainfully employed. The respondent in W.P.No. 5135 of 2020 (C. Karunanithi), being entitled to 50% of the back wages, filed another miscellaneous petition in WMP No. 23186 of 2020, seeking a direction to the petitioner management to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,74,288/-, representing 50% of the amount due to him from 29.11.2016 to 17.12.2019. He further prayed for permission to withdraw the interest accrued every three months in the event of the deposit being made.

5. The facts leading to the filing of W.P. No. 5133 of 2020 are as follows:

The respondent, C. Kalaivasan, was placed under suspension by an order dated 19.11.2016 (Ex.M2). Subsequently, the suspension was revoked by an order dated 22.11.2016 (Ex.M3). The suspension arose out of an incident involving the alleged assault of an employee named S. Balaji and the use of abusive language towards him. It was claimed that S. Balaji lodged a police complaint regarding the incident at the Rural Police Station, Gudiyatham, through a complaint dated 19.11.2016 (Ex.M5), and the police issued a CSR acknowledgment on 26.11.2016 (Ex.M6). The complaint indicated that the incident purportedly took place in Bangarishikuppam village. Based on the said incident, the Management, by an order dated 29.11.2016 (Ex.M10), dismissed the responden