P. Murugaiah v. The Presiding Officer,

ORDER This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed in I.D.No.21 of 2003, dated 24.11.2001 with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to give all the back wages to the petitioner, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶2The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 01.02.1975 and has completed 24 years of service. On 14.04.1999, when the bus was travelling from Tirunelveli to Madurai, the Checking Inspector found that the collection ticket money was not properly entered in the invoice book and finally, they have concluded that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of Rs.137.50. At that time, the Inspector has obtained statement from the petitioner and the same was produced before the 2nd respondent office. Based on the above said incident, the 2nd respondent has suspended the petitioner from service on

17.04.1999. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has conducted enquiry on 08.07.1999 and the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation. The Enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report, wherein the charges were held proved. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from service on 16.09.1999. Aggrieved over the termination order, the petitioner has approached the Labour court in I.D.No.21 of 2003. The Labour Court, vide order, dated 24.11.2011 has confirmed the termination order. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent to disburse the backwages and other benefits. Since the same was not granted the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.137.50 by manipulating entries in the original record and duplicate tickets was issued to passengers and not making relevant entries in the invoice book about the sale of ticket. Since it is a matter of misappropriation, the petitioner cannot claim any backwages. Hence, the dismissal from service is an appropriate punishment. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶4Heard M/s.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K. Sathiya Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material documents available on record.

¶5The contention of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is that he has not made proper entry in the invoice book cannot be accepted, because the petitioner was issued with the carbon paper as well as the white sheet. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner has deliberately used the white sheet not enter the amount in the invoice book and misappropriated the money. The said contention of the respondents was not accepted by the Labour Court. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: ..... "22. gazf;fl;lzj;ij jpUj;Jtjw;F VJthf nts;is Ngg;gh; xd;wpid kDjhuh; gad;gLj;jpdhh; vd;W $wg;gl;lJ. mJ epiyahiz gphpT 16(8)I GhptJ vd Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gl;lJ. ,e;j bf;nfl; Gj;jfj;jpy; ,Ue;J fhh;gDk;

nts;is

jhSk;

Ma;thsuhy; fz;nlLf;fg;gLfpwJ.

mij

kDjhuh; xg;Gf;nfhz;bUf;fpwhh;. ,e;j nts;is jhshdJ fhh;gd; cila mOj;jk; xhp[pdypy; gjpahky; ,Ug;gjw;fhf bf;nfl;

fl;ilapy;

fhh;gDf;F

Nkyhf itf;fg;gl;bUe;jjhf

nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ.

,J ek;gj;jf;fjhf cs;sJ. fz;nlLf;fg;gl;l nts;is jhshdJ Ie;J gaz rPl;Lf;fspy; NrUk; ,lj;ijAk; gazf;fl;lzj;ijAk;

vOjhky;

,Ug;gjw;fhf gad;gLj;jg;gl;ljhf $wg;gl;bUf;fpwJ. mt;thW mJ gadgLj;jg;gl;bUf;FNkahdhy; me;j nts;is jhspd; gpd;Gwj;jpy;

me;j

gjpT

Vw;gl;bUf;Fk;. Vndd;why;

,Ugf;fk;

nfhz;l

fhh;gd;

jhd; gad;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt ,J Fwpj;J kDjhuh; nrhd;d fhuzk; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ,Uf;fpwJ. Mifapdhy; ,e;j Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;W fUJfpNwd;". Having accepted the contention of the petitioner, the Labour Court has declined the relief to the petitioner. The Labour Court is a fact-finding Court and this Court is confirming the finding in favour of the petitioner.

¶6Totally, there are three charges framed against the petitioner and one charge held as not proved by the Labour Court. The other charges are consequences to this charge. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order ought to be interfered with.

¶7The petitioner has attained superannuation in the year 2010. But the petitioner has filed this writ petition belatedly. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to grant some compensation to the petitioner.

¶8The 2nd respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner, as full and final settlement. The petitioner is not entitled to any other benefits. The impugned order passed in I.D.No.21 of 2003, dated 24.11.2001 by the Labour Court is modified to the extent stated supra.

¶9With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Index : Yes / No

13.06.2023 Internet : Yes

ksa To

¶1The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

¶2The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division 2), Tirunelveli -3. S.SRIMATHY, J ksa W.P.(MD)No. 4564 of 2016

13.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2016 P.Murugaiah ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division 2), Tirunelveli -3. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.21 of 2003 dated 24.11.2001 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to give all the back wages to the petitioner, within a stipulated time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Jeyakumaran For R-1 : Labour Court. For R-2 : Mr.K. Sathiya Singh, Standing Counsel