However, it turned out to be true for a conductor attached to the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division I) Ltd. Equally worse was the 15-year long fight the conductor had to go through in search of justice.

Though he finally found it after a long haul, it turned out to be a classic case of justice delayed is justice denied. He had superannuated on June 30, 2008 making the question of his reinstatement redundant despite winning the case. The only solace is that the High Court has directed MTC to pay 50 per cent of the wages from February 11, 2003 till the date of his superannuation. It also held that the conductor is entitled to withdraw 30 per cent of the back wages of Rs 68,296 already deposited before the Labour court.

The conductor MK Dananjayan, who joined MTC on August 1, 1986, landed in trouble on August 3, 1993, while he was on duty in Route No.Ve 540. A sudden inspection by an MTC team found some discrepancies in issuing tickets and non-collection of fare to some luggage. Based on this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after an enquiry the conductor was removed from service on March 3, 1995.

Thereafter, MTC claimed that the conductor had sought for a reappointment and had entered into a 18(1)-settlement pursuant to which on December 18, 1995 the dismissed conductor was directed to rejoin duty as fresh entrant under daily wages. Aggrieved by this, the conductor raised an industrial dispute before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, which on February 11, 2002 set aside the dismissal order. It also directed MTC to reinstate Dananjayan into service with all service benefits. But MTC, unwilling to accept the order moved an appeal at MHC causing another bout of litigation.

Justice R Suresh Kumar on observing that the Labour Court has also given the finding that the shortage of only 30 paisa was justified by the Conductor for which the entire calculation has been made and established, said “The Labour court has also concluded that as per the standing order which is in vogue with MTC, if the shortage is Rs 20, the same can be permissible. Here in the case in hand, the alleged shortage is only 30 paisa.”

The judge also held, “The action of dismissal for the charges which had not been proved was found unjustifiable, as per the finding of the labour court and therefore, there is every justification on the part of the labour court to conclude that the dismissal of service was unlawful. Therefore, the findings given, and the conclusion reached by the labour court, cannot be found fault with.”