Ramaprasad Rao, J.
1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. T. Ramalingam and M. Mahalingam, advocates for the petitioner, the Court made the following order :
2. The two charges framed against respondents 1 and 2, namely, (1) that they indulged in immoral trafficking, and (2) that in the course of their employment, they did not conduct themselves properly, were proved to be unsustainable as held by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras. Having held that the charges were not substantiated, the Labour Court in its discretion directed reinstatement and considered that in its opinion payment of compensation to them would not be an adequate relief. It is against this order of the Labour Court that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The first charge is a very serious one reflecting on the character and morality of the workers, that charge has not been substantiated. In fact, the ladies involved did not come forward to say that they had been seduced in a public place. The Labour Court found that the evidence was not sufficient for it to hold that respondents 1 and 2 had an affair with the ladies in the bus. On the other hand, it categorically found that it was set up for an occasion to suit the convenience of the management. The other charge is about certain lapses in the course of their employment and the Labour Court equally found that the alleged shortage in the number of tickets was set up once again for the occasion. In the result, the Labour Court was satisfied that there was practically victimisation of these two workers and it was in those circumstances that the request of the management to award compensation instead of reinstatement was rejected. I do not find that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is in any way not warranted on the facts. It is only in cases where reinstatement of a worker whose services have been terminated would result in explosive industrial relations between the management and the terminated workers that it would be necessary for an Industrial Court to consider whether the alternative remedy of awarding compensation would be adequate. This request was elaborately considered by the Labour Court and found against the management.
4. Again, it is pointed out that there was no demand raised by the workers against the managements in, the usual manner and, therefore, the reference itself was initially bad. It is too late in the day for the management to take up this contention. Even otherwise, factually it is seen that there were conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer which failed and consequent upon such failure a reference was directed by the State Government under the appropriate section of the Industrial Disputes Act. I cannot, therefore, see any error of law or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction in the award challenged.
5. The writ petition is dismissed.