The termination of the workman was deemed unjustified and punitive, leading to an increase in compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000 based on the nature of his duties and the stigma attached to the termination.

ORDER :

D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. Prelude:

The name of the management in this case is Caterpillar India Private Limited. The workman, in this case, was terminated from service on 01.08.1991. Today, in the year 2025, when the case is decided, this Court could hear the vociferous objections from the Caterpillars, 'We are not this slow; we become butterflies and fly off'. Neither this Court nor the parties to the litigation can have any valid arguments for the objections, and sustaining the objections, I proceed to decide the matter finally.

B. The Writ Petitions:

2. These two Writ Petitions challenge the award of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, dated 10.07.2008. By this award, the Labour Court disposed of the Claim Petition filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D Act'). While determining that the non-employment was unjustified, the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of all claims for reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits. Aggrieved by the award, both the management and the workman are before this Court.

C. The case of the workman:

3. The case of the workman is that he was appointed on 01.08.1991 as Canteen Supervisor. Although his designation was stated as Supervisor, his job was clerical in nature. During this time, he received a memo, dated 07.12.1987, alleging insubordination and negligence. He was also placed under suspension pending inquiry and faced a punishment of 10 days suspension. Since he had not been paid his salary for the interim period, he filed C.P.No.644 of 1988, claiming arrears of salary. He also filed C.P.No.132 of 1991, claiming the increment due. Additionally, another memorandum dated 27.12.1990 was issued against the workman stating that on 21.12.1990, during the first shift at approximately 11:05 A.M, the workman misbehaved with a canteen committee member. In his explanation dated 03.01.1991, the petitioner denied the charges. An inquiry was subsequently conducted; however, it was neither fair nor proper. Once again, he was suspended on 10.01.1991. Ultimately, without imposing any punishment, the management terminated the petitioner’s services by an order dated 01.08.1991, which is unsustainable in law. His last drawn salary was Rs.3,791/- per month. He raised a dispute. Conciliation failed. Therefore, he filed a Claim Petition seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, and all other attendant benefits.

D. The case of the management:

4. The management's position is that the workman was appointed as Canteen Supervisor, and at the time of his termination, his salary was Rs.3,891/- per month. He was directly responsible for the entire operation during the second shift, which included overseeing the canteen cooks and workers. He was also responsible for granting leave and permissions to workers on that shift. Therefore, he does not qualify as a workman under the definition in Section 2(s) of the I.D Act. Both Computation Petitions filed by the workman, C.P.Nos.644 of 1988 and 132 of 1991, lack merit and are based on incorrect facts. On 21.12.1990, he committed certain acts of misconduct. For one of the misconduct incidents, he received a show-cause notice. The workman's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, and the management conducted an inquiry in a fair and proper manner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings, concluding that the charges were proven. However, only in order to avoid the stigma, the workman was simply terminated from service. The same is in accordance with the terms of the appointment.

E. The findings of the Labour Court:

5. Based on the aforementioned pleadings, the Labour Court commenced the e