Heard the learned counsel for both parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the management, challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, directing the reinstatement of second respondent, with full back wages.
3. It was the case of the second respondent that without any enquiry, he was dismissed from service on the basis of oral instructions of the management. This had been denied by the Management.
4. Management pleaded that there was some incidence of abusing and assault and thereafter the second respondent had voluntarily abandoned the work and there was no dismissal of the second respondent from service.
5. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman has not voluntarily abandoned the work, but he was orally dismissed. Even though the said finding has been challenged by the management, considering the reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal and keeping in view the limited scope for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, I do not see any scope for interference with such findings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the management was willing to take back the second respondent in service the second respondent had not rejoined the service on some pretext or other. It is not disputed that because of the pendency of the writ proceedings in this Court, the order relating to compliance with Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act viz., the last drawn wages had been paid to the second respondent. It further appears that some amount has also been paid by the management pursuant to the direction of this Court.
7. Having regard to all these aspects, I think that interest of justice would be met by directing the management to permit the second respondent to join duty (posting to be indicated by the management). This shall be intimated within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order and the second respondent shall join duty within 2 weeks from the receipt of such order relating to posting.
8. The amount already deposited as per the direction of this Court along with accrued interest, if any, shall be withdrawn by the second respondent. No further amount shall be payable towards backwages till the date of rejoining of the second respondent. However, it shall be deemed as second respondent is continuing in service all along and on the basis of such continuity of service, increments if any, would be calculated shall become payable for the subsequent period, after rejoining.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P is closed.
This matter has been listed on being mentioned by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management.
2. In the order dated 11.11.2002, it has been indicated that the management should permit the second respondent to join the duty (posting to be indicated by management).
3. It now appears, pursuant to the notice dated 22.11.2002 and 27.11.2002, the second respondent has reported on 29.11.2002 at the Head Office. It is expected that the Management would give appropriate posting within Tamil Nadu at nearest available place.