The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the Impugned award passed by the 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai, wherein, the Labour Court, while deciding the industrial dispute in respect of termination of petitioner as null and void, directed the respondent / Management to pay 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service of petitioner, deducting two months' notice pay out of three months' notice pay already paid, thereupon the larger relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages were denied.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination of the petitioner as null and void, then the order of reinstatement is automatic and consequential, therefore, the impugned award passed is liable to be interfered with.
3. This Court is unable to find any merits on the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The reason is, when the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground that he is always misbehaving and created ruckus in the work spot, dealing with the said incident, the Labour court has given a finding stating that the relationship between the petitioner and the Management has got strained, therefore, the scope of acceptance of the petitioner to the association is very remote and apprehending imminent danger and peril to the co-workers, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be reinstated. That apart, the enquiry officer also in this regard, has given a finding that the petitioner was guilty of using unparliamentary words on his supervisor and colleagues and often created ruckus at work site. Moreover, the case of the 2nd respondent before the Labour Court was that in the year 2012, the petitioner slapped a colleague and subsequently, he tendered an apology in writing. The same has been taken note of by the Labour Court and an effort to inspire the confidence of the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent has also chosen to mark the E-mail complaint of one P.K.Prakash dated 28.11.2012 as Ex.M.2 and the apology letter of the petitioner dated 03.12.2012 as Ex.M.3. In that letter, the petitioner having admitted the mistake committed for the second time, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the Management had rightly refused to take back the petitioner apprehending danger. However, with regard to the relief, the 2nd respondent was directed to pay 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service of petitioner, deducting two months' notice pay out of three months' notice pay already paid, hence, this Court, is unable to find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court warranting interference. Therefore, the T. RAJA, J.
ssd writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.
07.11.2017 Speaking order/Non speaking order Index: Yes/No ssd To 1 The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai
2. The Management, L&T Limited, Construction Power Transmission and Distribution, Manapakkam, P.B.No.979, Chennai 600 089 W.P. No.28326 of 2017