This Writ petition is filed against the order passed by the second respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.97 of 2004, dated 31.05.2011, on the file of the second respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, and also seeking a direction to the first respondent Management to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits and continuity of service.
2. The Writ petitioner was an employee of the first respondent Management from the year 1997 and at the time of employment, she was paid a sum of Rs.700/- per month and it was gradually increased to Rs.1,500/- per month in the year 2000. The first respondent Management is a reputed concern of German entrepreneurs, which was managed by an Indian Managing Director. On 17.09.2001, during the annual day celebrations, a group of employees had made a quarrel with the first respondent management, which resulted in termination en masse. The petitioner, without being involved in any of the incidents and without committing any misconduct was one amont who were terminated. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had raised a dispute in I.D.No.97 of 2004 on the file of the second respondent.
3. A common enquiry was conducted and a common finding was given by the enquiry officer. The witnesses were not examined individually. The common enquiry was conducted without affording ample opportunity and the enquiry officer had concluded that all the charges were proved and the petitioner was also terminated from service.
4. The first respondent had submitted that the employees had indulged in violent activities and also in unfair labour practices, illegal strike and riot within the premises. Since they had indulged in illegal practice and caused financial loss to the first respondent Management, suitable charges were framed and after conducting proper enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
5. When the matter was taken up for trial, the workers had given up their right in respect of a preliminary enquiry and challenge is made with regard to the fact that whether the findings of the enquiry officer was fair and legal and whether the conduct of the enquiry was proper. Therefore, the second respondent had gone into the proportionality of the punishment alone. While considering the issue, the second respondent had accepted the secondary evidence marked by the Management and has held that an issue can be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability as strict rules of Evidence Act will not be applicable to the disciplinary enquiry, but ultimately, had arrived at a finding that the enquiry conducted en masse holding all the workers for misconduct. The findings of the enquiry officer in so far as the individual employees are concerned, it was appeared to be an exaggerated one and the second respondent had come to a conclusion that the punishment imposed by the first respondent was disproportionate to the misconduct. Therefore, considering the complaint of the employees, the second respondent had come to the conclusion that they are not entitled to the back-wages and accordingly, found that the denial of back-wages is the appropriate punishment in exercising its jurisdiction. Since the employees were out of employment for ten years from the year 2011 and the management was also not willing to take care the workers, the second respondent had rightly decided to award compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner persistently argued that only with a view to appoint new workers on very lesser scale of pay, the management had dismissed the petitioner and other employees from service without adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in some cases, higher compensation was awarded by the second respondent whereas the petitioner was awarded only with a meager sum of Rs.50,000/-, without any rationale. The award simply states that considering the totality of circumstances,a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. The said amount was not based on any rational basis. However, this Court under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, unless it is considered to be shockingly disproportionate. However, this Court finds that the sum of Rs.50,000/- is not a fair compensation. Instead of remitting the matter to the second respondent only for the purpose of re-arriving at the fair compensation, by which, the petitioner would put to further mental agony at this distance of time, it is considered fair to direct the first respondent to pay a fair compensation corresponding to the service and salary of the petitioner and the proportionate compensation on par with the similarly placed employees. Even though the petitioner claims higher compensation, this court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) towards total compensation would be adequate and reasonable.
7. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the petitioner as total compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While paying the same, the amount as awarded by the Labour Court for a sum of Rs.50,000/- can be deducted, if it had already been paid to the petitioner.
8. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai 625 020..