@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Vinod K.Sharma, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order of fresh appointment, dated 30.01.2006.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation w.e.f.01.06.1986. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.05.1991,the suspension order was thereafter revoked on 24.06.1991.
3. The Petitioner was served with a charge-memo alleging misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of serious misconduct.
4. The Management accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the Petitioner from service on 11.11.1992. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the order of termination, before the learned Labour Court, Madurai.
5. The learned Labour Court found that the enquiry held was in violation of principles of natural justice held was that the charges were not proved, as the shortage of amount was due to unintended mistake.
6. The learned Labour Court, after re-appreciation of facts and evidence, came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and consequently ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back-wages.
7. The award has attained finality, as it was not challenged by the Management. Instead of reinstating the Petitioner with continuity of service, the second Respondent issued a fresh letter of appointment dated 31.01.2006.
8. The impugned fresh letter of appointment, is challenged on the ground that the issuance of fresh appointment is contemptuous, being in violation of the award, passed by the learned Labour Court.
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contends that the issuance of a fresh letter of appointment is nothing, but arbitrary exercise of power, which cannot be sustained, being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Management, by contending, that there is a statutory settlement between the workmen and the management u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, duly registered with the Labour Department, therefore, the Petitioner at this stage, is estopped from challenging the fresh letter of appointment.
11. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Once an award is passed ordering reinstatement without back-wages, there can be hardly any dispute, which could result in settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the award passed by the learned Labour Court,settlement u/s 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act is to be treated as null and void, as the settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act can only be arrived at in a pending dispute to arrive at amicable settlement, but the settlement cannot be used to defeat the rights under an award. The second Respondent is bound to implement the award in letter and spirit, after it attained finality.
12. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed, the fresh letter of appointment is set aside.
13. The second Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service, but without back-wages, as ordered by the first Respondent/Labour Court, Madurai.
14. No. costs.
