In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages is the standard ruling, subject to specific considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 10595 of 2018 is the Management, challenging the award passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 408 of 2005 dated 01.11.2007. By the said award, the respondent workman was granted reinstatement with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages and other attendant benefits. The writ petition was admitted on 26.04.2018, and in W.M.P. No. 10562 of 2008, an interim stay was granted, subject to the condition that the Management deposits 50% of the award amount, failing which the stay would stand vacated.

3. Upon receiving notice, the respondent workman filed two miscellaneous petitions: W.M.P. No. 30605 of 2018 to vacate the stay granted on 06.04.2010 and W.M.P. No. 30609 of 2018 seeking payment of monthly wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. These petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 02.04.2019, wherein this Court directed the payment of monthly wages under Section 17B from January 2019 until the disposal of the writ petition. Also, the Management was ordered to deposit the amount covered by the award with the Labour Court, which in turn was directed deposit the amount in a nationalized bank. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 02.06.2020, this Court directed verification of whether the Management had deposited 50% of the back wages as required.

4. Much later, the workman came up with his writ petition being W.P.No.2 197 of 2020 challenging that portion of the impugned award in 1.D.408 of 2005 dt. 1.11.2017 and after quashing the same sought for a payment of full wages with all attendant benefits, In that W.P., notice was ordered to the other side on 30.1.2020 and the said writ petition was directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition filed by the management. Thus, both WPs were clubbed together and a Common order is passed.

5. The workman was employed as a storekeeper in the warehouse of the petitioner company, which is engaged in the production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and operates a storehouse under the supervision of the Excise Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was charge-sheeted by an order dated 07.04.2003, alleging that on 29.03.2003, he reported for duty during the first shift at 6:00 a.m. instead of his designated general shift, which commenced at 8:30 a.m., without obtaining prior permission from his superior, and despite the absence of any dispatch activities in the warehouse on that day.

6. On the same day, when the workman attempted to leave his shift at 7:10 a.m., the security guard demanded a gate pass for his exit. Instead of obtaining the required gate pass, he assured the guard that he would arrange for it when the Works Manager arrived at 8:30 a.m. Furthermore, during a meeting convened by the Works Manager later that day, a supervisor reported that the workman was found sleeping in the room of the Excise Deputy Tahsildar at around 11:20 a.m. Despite being questioned by the Works Manager, he did not leave the factory at the end of the first shift and instead overstayed, finally leaving only at 3:48 a.m. It was also alleged that he was engaged in money lending within the factory premises, charging exorbitant interest rates. As a result, he was placed under suspension pending an inquiry.

7. The workman submitted his explanation on 09.04.2003, denying the charges against him. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted, and based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer dated 19.08.2003, he was dismissed from service with effect from 02.04.2003. Following his dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Upon the issuance of a failure report dated 23.12.2004, he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. His dispute was registered as I.D. No. 408 of 2005, and notice was issued to the Management. In response, the Management filed a counter statement on 06.01.2006, defending its action. Additionally, the Management contended that if the domesti