Transport Corporation Ltd v. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.2.N.Basheer Ahmed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.18246 of 20011.The Management Dr.Ambedkar Transport Corporation now known as Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

The Management, Pallavan Transport Corporation now known as Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002... Petitioners Vs.1.The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.2.N.Basheer Ahmed.. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarito call for the records on the file of the first respondent and to set aside the impugned award dated 30.11.2000 made in I.D.No.343 of1996.For Petitioner : Ms.Rajeswari for M/s.King & Partridge For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi for R2ORDERThe petitioner is the State owned Transport Corporation. They have come forward to challenge an Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.343 of 1996, dated 30.11.2000. Bythe impugned Award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent as a Conductor with service continuity and 75% ofbackwages. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 4.10.2001. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay of reinstatement alone. Subsequently, the second respondent filed a vacate stay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application in WVMP No.315 of 2002 and also an application for adirection to pay last drawn wages in terms of Section 17B of the IDAct. This court by an order dated 28.3.2002 recorded that the management was willing to reinstate the workman and insofar asbackwages are concerned, it was found that there was dispute regarding quantum. Therefore, it was directed that in case workman succeeds, the amount of back wages will earn 9% annual interest. Itwas further recorded that in terms of arrears of Section 17Bpayment, a sum of Rs.61600/- was due and the petitioner corporation was directed to pay Rs.60000/- to the workman. Subsequent to the order, the management by an order dated 2.5.2002 paid Rs.60000/- andby a further order dated 13.5.2002, it restored the petitioner to the post of Conductor.

When the matter came up on 13.4.2010, it was informed to this court that the workman had retired from service on 31.1.2007.Therefore, this court directed both parties to explore the possibility of settlement. Since no settlement was forthcoming, the matter was taken up for hearing on merits.

From the impugned Award, it is seen that the charge against the workman was that he was working as a Conductor from16.6.1967. He claimed that he had studied upto 9th standard and thereafter, he wrote SSLC and passed the same. On 21.7.1992, he was promoted as a Ticket Checker. Thereafter, one Govindasamy, Conductorgave a complaint that the petitioner had not passed the test. Hencea charge memo was given. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, an Enquiry was conducted. By a final order, dated 10.10.1994, he was removed from service. The Labour court held that though the certificate was false, the management failed to prove by leading appropriate evidence as to who had fabricated the certificate etc. Hence, it ordered reinstatement with back wages with service continuity. The standard of proof required in such matters were setout in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Boardof Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi and others reported in 1991 (2) SCC 716. The reasoning given there goes diametrically opposed to the finding of the labour court.

The learned counsel for the workman contended that even assuming without admitting that the school certificate was false, he should have been reverted only from the post of Ticket checker to that of Conductor and not ousted from service all together. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of a division bench of this court in P.Sekar Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai and others reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 646. Thiscourt while agreeing that a bogus certificate was produced, but it will be relevant only for holding the promotional post. But for holding the original post, there was no requirement of the said qualification and hence reinstated the worker in the original post.

In the present case, in order to avoid payment under Section 17B, the management had reinstated the workman and he had also continued in service for more than five years and retired from service. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.Rajeswari https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ strongly contended that back wages should be reduced, this court is not inclined to agree with the same for three reasons. Firstly, assuming that the certificate produced by the workman was bogus, he could be reverted to the post of Conductor and not dismissed from service as held by the Division Bench. At the same time, the labour court was wrong in stating that there was no proof against the workman. The labour court itself had denied full back wages and has ordered 75% of the arrears only. This court has already held that heis eligible for interest at the rate of 9% in case the workman succeeds in the writ petition. In the present case, the workman had succeeded only on grounds of equity and not on the basis of reasoning given by the labour court.

Therefore, this court is not inclined to order interest at the rate of 9% p.a. which was ordered by an interim order. He is not eligible to get 75% back wages as ordered by the labour court. Hencethe impugned Award of the labour court is modified as one of reinstatement with service continuity and back wages at the rate of50%. The petitioner corporation is directed to redo the calculations regarding back wages and pay it to the workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Whiledoing so, it can adjust the amounts already paid to the workman and pay only the balance. They are also directed to pay any terminal benefits payable on account of his retirement.

In the light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar/True Copy/Sub. Asst. RegistrarvvkToThe Presiding Officer,I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate, SR.29592+ 1 cc to M/s.King & Partridge, Advocate, SR.29137W.P.NO.18246 of 2001BS(CO)EM/l0.5.10