Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs 2 G. Jayakumar on 19 June, 2023
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.1114 of 2023 & C.M.P. No.11245 of 2023
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam Division – I) Ltd.
represented by its General Manager
Railway Station New Road
Kumbakonam Appellant
v
1 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore
2 G. Jayakumar Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
order dated 26.02.2013 passed in W.P. No.26920 of 2003.
For appellant Mr. M. Murali Vinodh
for Mr. D. Venkatachalam
R1 Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For R2 Mr. K. Arunagiri
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
JUDGMENT
For the sake of clarity and to avoid verbosity, the parties will be adverted to
as per their rank in this writ appeal.
2 This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2013
passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.26920 of 2003 preferred by the
appellant Transport Corporation, wherein, the Single Bench confirmed the
reinstatement of the second respondent workman ordered by the first respondent
Labour Court, in I.D. No.52 of 1998 and granted only 50% backwages as against
full backwages ordered by the first respondent Labour Court.
3 The facts in a nutshell are as under:
3.1 The second respondent workman was working as Tradesman in the
appellant Transport Corporation. While so, he was issued with a charge memo
dated 19.10.1996 alleging that while he was looking after preparation and
maintenance of diesel and engine oil records, he physically altered the diesel bunk
reading meter, thereby enabling one S. Balasubramanian, Tradesman, a co-
workman, to misappropriate 12,000 litres of diesel and also prepared false diesel
requisition forms and records for disbursement of money qua receipt of 4,000
litres of diesel, with an intent to cause loss to the appellant Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
3.2 Since his explanation was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was
conducted, in which, the Enquiry Officer, vide his enquiry report dated
14.02.1997, held that the charges levelled against him were proved.
3.3 Eventually, after issuance of a show cause notice, he was terminated
from service, challenging which, he raised an industrial dispute before the first
respondent Labour Court.
3.4 The first respondent Labour Court, observing that no reason was
adduced by the appellant Transport Corporation for imposing lesser punishment
for other co-delinquents, who were also charged in the same way as the second
respondent workman and charges against whom also stood proved, set aside the
termination order and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and
backwages, vide award dated 17.02.2003.
3.5 Challenging the aforesaid award, the appellant Transport Corporation
filed W.P. No.26920 of 2003, in which, a Single Bench of this Court confirmed
the award of the first respondent Labour Court qua reinstatement and ordered
only 50% backwages as against full backwages ordered by the first respondent
Labour Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
3.6 The main ground on the basis of which the Single Bench confirmed
the award of the first respondent Labour Court qua reinstatement was that, for the
same set of charges, the co-delinquents have been inflicted with a lesser
punishment, whereas, the second respondent workman has been terminated from
service, which is tantamount to discrimination.
3.7 The aforesaid order of the Single Bench is under assail in this writ
appeal by the Transport Corporation.
4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
5 Concededly, besides the second respondent workman, 7 persons, viz.,
Balasubramanian (Tradesman), Chandrasekaran (Bunk Boy), Mohamed Fraook
(Bunk Boy), Balamurugan (Assistant Engineer), Premkumar (Assistant Engineer),
Tamilselvan (Junior Engineer) and Krishnamoorthi (Branch Manager) were
involved in the shortage of 12,000 litres of diesel and disciplinary proceedings was
initiated against all of them and they were also inflicted with punishments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
6 The charges against the second respondent workman are that he
altered the diesel bunk reading meter and thereby, aided his co-workman, viz.,
Balasubramanian, Tradesman, to misappropriate 12,000 litres of diesel and
prepared false diesel requisition forms for disbursement of money qua receipt of
4,000 litres of diesel, with an intention to cause loss to the appellant Transport
Corporation.
7 The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation
submitted that given the seriousness of the misconduct, the second respondent
workman ought not to have been granted reinstatement, backwages and other
benefits at all. It is noteworthy that the second respondent workman was not a
bunk boy, but, a Tradesman, who aided another Tradesman, viz.,
S.Balasubramanian, who is no more now, to commit the misconduct. Hence, the
finding of the Single Bench that the second respondent workman ought not to have
been discriminated and he too should have be inflicted with a lesser punishment
such as postponement of increment, as was imposed on the co-delinquents, does
not cut ice with us.
8 The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation further
submitted that the services of the second respondent workman may be reckoned
only upto the date of dismissal and he may be extended pensonary benefits alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
9 At this juncture, it is worth pointing out that the second respondent
workman, who is aged 79 years now, has filed a memo dated 15.06.2023 giving
up backwages ordered by the first respondent Labour Court and that it would
suffice if he is given pensionary benefits alone.
10 Considering the gravity of the offence, we are not for grant of any
relief to the second respondent workman. However, in view of the concession
made by the learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation, we hold that
the second respondent workman shall be paid only pensionary benefits for the
actual services rendered by him from 14.11.1980 till 16.09.1997, which shall be
computed on the basis of the pay he was drawing on his last working day, i.e.,
16.09.1997. It is made clear the wages paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, need not be adjusted. The second respondent workman is
deprived of gratuity also in view of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972. But for the concession of the appellant Transport Corporation, no money
under any head, much less pension is payable.
11 The order passed by the Single Bench is modified to the extent
indicated above.
The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Costs made easy.
Connected C.M.P. stands closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
19.06.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
To
1 The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam Division – I) Ltd.
Railway Station New Road
Kumbakonam
2 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.A. No.1114 of 2023
19.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
