HC settles man’s 17-year-old battle to continue his job

MADURAI: A conductor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) Kumbakonam division, who was dismissed from service 16 years ago, will be reinstated in the job, as per an order of the Madras high court Madurai bench despite an appeal filed by the management.
The conductor namely K Tamilmaran was working on one of the routes between Manapparai and Thogamalai. According to the corporation, the conductor was given memos on four charges – for receiving Rs 2.25 from a male passenger, but did not issue him with a ticket; having excess amount of Rs 10.30 in his bag; for abandoning the bus once; and failing to receive the memo from the checking inspector.
Denying all these, the conductor submitted his explanation to the management, which however dismissed him from service on January 17, 1998 after conducting a domestic inquiry. His dismissal made him file a petition at the labour court, Trichy. But, the labour court dismissed his claim on October 31, 2006. Aggrieved over it, the conductor filed a writ petition before the Madras high court bench in 2010. The single judge passed an order on April 25, 2013 holding that the conductor ought not to have been dismissed from service and the labour court ought to have interfered with his issue and accordingly directed the corporation to reinstate him in service with 30% back wages and continuity of service. But, both the conductor and the corporation were not satisfied with the single judge’s order and filed appeals against the order in 2014. The conductor wanted full back wages while the corporation wanted to set aside the single judge’s order.
The division bench of justices M Jaichandren and R Mahadevan heard the appeals.
The transport corporation’s counsel D Sivaraman submitted that the award of the labour court is sustainable, since the act of the conductor in not issuing ticket to the passenger would amount to dishonesty and grave negligence and therefore, the punishment of removal from service, would be justified. The conductor’s counsel I Anandhavalli argued that in the first three occasions the alleged male passenger was not examined in the domestic inquiry, while it was the usual practice of conductors to have some of their personal cash so that the change can be given back to the passengers, and he left the bus only to give a statement to the depot manager.
Writing the judgment, justice R Mahadevan said the single judge correctly ordered for reinstatement.
The single judge had held that the labour court is duty cast upon to analyse whether the alleged male passenger was examined in the domestic inquiry or whether the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the same.
However, insofar as awarding of 30% back wages to the conductor was concerned, he did not desire to it due to his conduct at the relevant point of time and hence, his appeal seeking full back wages is dismissed, justice Mahadevan observed.