JUDGMENT

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge, dated

24.01.2022 in W.P.No.11094 of 2017, whereby, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent/workman was allowed by the learned Judge, in respect of the relief granted to him by the Labour Court.

2. The facts on record are as follows. The respondent (hereinafter workman) was appointed as a Driver by an order dated 28.08.2006. On 28.01.2011, a hand written charge-sheet is issued by the authorised signatory of the appellant (hereinafter Management) to the workman whereby it was alleged that on 19.08.2010, when the workman was given the responsibility to oversee the activity of the lifting the scraps from the factory, around 12'o clock, when the scraps were being lifted, one Senthil and Mohideen have given Rs.1500/- per load and removed valuable metal scraps along with other scraps which was found out by the security of the management, namely Vemanathan and a Police complaint was also given on 19.08.2010 and therefore, it was alleged that since the workman is an accomplice of theft, the same amounted to misconduct under Rule 16.3 and Rule 4 of the model certified standing orders and the workman lost the confidence of the management. Stating so, the workman was called upon to submit his explanation within 48 hours from the date of receipt of charge memo and failing which it was mentioned that disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against him.

3. After receipt thereof, on 02.02.2011, the workman submitted his explanation. It is his explanation that even though he was a Driver, upon being asked to supervise the job of lifting of scraps from May, 2010, he was performing the same. While so, on 19.08.2010, even during the working hours, false complaint was given against him and he was sent to the Police Station and thereafter, he was sent on leave and then the HR personnel had negotiated with him for ending his employment, but he did not accept. Thereafter, vindictively, this action has been taken. The receipt for proof of sending the said explanation by way of registered post is also produced. Again on 08.02.2011, he made a further representation that he is being victimised by the management, in which, he has specifically asked for a copy of the Police complaint given against him. The said representation is also sent by the registered post and receipt for sending the same is also produced. Again on 10.03.2011, he made a further representation requesting the management to drop its vindictive proceedings and give him employment and the arrears. On 12.02.2011, an order of discharge from service of the company is passed stating that inspite of the charge-memo, he did not submit any explanation and has only been delaying the matters and therefore, the management has lost confidence for stealing the company's property and therefore, decided to discharge the workman from 12.02.2011.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised a dispute and conciliation proceedings were held before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6 and since the same ended in failure, the workman thereafter approached the Labour Court, Chennai under Section 2 - A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The claim was taken on file as I.D.No.189 of 2013 and it was the case of the workman that suddenly he was refused work and a false charge was made against him and absolutely no enquiry was conducted and therefore, the workman prayed for an award holding that the order dated 12.02.2011, issued by the management discharging the workman from service, as illegal and unjustified and direct the management to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service, full back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

6. The management filed a counter statement in which it was contended that the respondent herein was a Supervisor, drawing a salary of Rs.7500/- and therefore, he was not a workman. On 19.08.2010, the incident as mentioned in the charge-sheet happe