JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J)

This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the workman assailing the order of the Writ Court, dated 20.09.2012, made in W.P.No.5163 of 2011, whereby, the order of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No.39 of 2003 was set aside and the order of the competent authority terminating the appellant was restored.

2.The appellant was appointed as 'Conductor' in the respondent Transport Corporation on 18.08.1991. When he was on duty on 27.04.2003 in the bus bearing registration No.TN-58-N-0008, which was plying between Madapuram and Periyar Bus Stand, a surprise check was conducted by the Checking Inspector at 04.40 p.m. On verification, it was found that the appellant had issued old tickets of Rs.8.50 denomination to 14 passengers and 4 tickets of Rs.7.50 to 4 passengers and thereby, he misappropriated Rs.149/-. In this regard, a charge memo was issued and a departmental enquiry was held and the enquiry officer found the charges were proved. The competent authority agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer terminated the appellant from service vide order dated 30.06.2003.

3.Aggrieved over the order of termination, the appellant raised an industrial dispute seeking the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. The Labour Court vide order, dated 08.11.2010, set aside the order of termination of the respondent, dated 30.06.2003, and ordered reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service, however, without back- wages and other benefits. The first respondent Transport Corporation questioned the order of the Labour Court in W.P.No.5163 of 2011. The learned Single Judge having found that the finding of the Labour Court was perverse and against law, quashed the award of the Labour Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.T.A.Ebenezer would argue that the appellant herein has rendered unblemished service for 13 years as Conductor in the respondent Corporation, while so, had wrongly punched the tickets as “down” instead of “up”. So, the charge of misappropriation of the fund of the Corporation is unsustainable and it has not been proved. It is also contended that for the acceptable negligence, the punishment of dismissal would be disproportionate. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement of the appellant into service and no ground was made out before the Writ Court to interfere with the order of the Labour Court.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.J.Senthil Kumariah made submissions in support of the order of the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Advocate, the Labour Court went into the enquiry proceedings when it was not required and set aside the order of termination on flimsy grounds that the Management failed to produce the original documents; and fair enquiry was not conducted and the same was rightly set aside by the Single Judge.

6.Heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein was appointed as “Conductor” in the respondent Transport Corporation in the year 1991 and when he was on duty on 27.04.2003 at about 04.40 p.m, Checking Inspector had conducted surprise check and found that the appellant had issued old tickets, which were issued during the earlier trip at 02.25 p.m. A charge memo, in this regard, was issued as per the Standing Order No.16(5). In the departmental enquiry, it was held that the charges were proved against the appellant. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, the appellant was terminated from service on 30.06.2003 and the same was challenged before the Labour Court.

8.The stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the Standing Order No.16(5) deals with the theft,