COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. One Padmanabhan joined TNSTC Limited as Conductor on 08.04.1987. While discharging his duties as conductor in the bus plying from Salem to Trichy on 04.11.2000, Padmanabhan is alleged to have collected the ticket fare of Rs.32/-, but failed to issue any ticket. He was charged with misappropriation. Domestic enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service on 31.03.2001. He raised industrial dispute and it was taken on file by the Labour Court, Trichy in I.D.No. 36 of 2002. Vide award dated 30.09.2013, the punishment of dismissal was set aside and the workman was ordered to be reinstated without backwages with all attendant benefits and continuity of service. The management did not reinstate the workman. Instead, it filed W.P. (MD)No.2160 of 2016 challenging the Labour Court's award. The workman also filed W.P.(MD)No.439 of 2016 for prosecuting the management for non-implementation of the award. Both the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by the learned single Judge vide order dated 28.11.2022 in the following terms:-

“6. Accordingly, the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.36 of 2002, dated 30.09.2013 is hereby confirmed. The petitioner corporation is directed to count the continuity of service and pay employee's provident contribution for the period from 31.03.2002 to 30.09.2013. Based on which, the pension shall be disbursed. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Aggrieved by the same, the management alone had filed W.A.(MD)No. 404 of 2024. The workman had also filed W.P.(MD)No.6537 of 2019 questioning the award and seeking payment insofar as it denied the backwages.

3. There is no difficulty in dismissing the writ appeal filed by the management. This is for a very simple reason. The Labour Court had passed the preliminary award dated 12.03.2007 specifically holding that domestic enquiry conducted by the management did not conform to the principles of natural justice. Whenever such preliminary award is passed, the management has given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court to sustain the punishment imposed by it on the workman. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, the management neither questioned the preliminary award nor adduced any fresh evidence before the Labour Court. Thus, it became a case of “no evidence” against the workman. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517 (Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court) had held as follows:-

“24. In view of the above, the legal position as emerges out is that in all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective, the Tribunal can call upon the Management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the Management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any ground at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If, however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the Management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence.''

4. Therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in affirming the order of the Labour Court setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the Labour Court was justified in denying backwages. In our view, when the Labour Court did not came to the conclusion that there is no evidence whatsoever against the workman even while setting aside the dismissal order, the labour Court ought to have ordered reinstate