High Court · 2025

W.P No.20918 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02.01.2015CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P.No.20918 of 2012and Mps.No.1 & 2 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 2015The Management of VGG EstateUnder Silver Cloud Estates, Pvt. Ltd,Represented by its Superintendent,Gudalur – 643 211. .. Petitioner Vs.1.The Proceeding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.2.V.Manickam .. RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent made in I.D.No.606 of 1999 dated 28.02.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.U. Ilango For Respondents : Court- R1 Mr.G.B.Saravana Bhavan for R21/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012 ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.D.No.606 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated 28.02.2011 and quash the same.2. The short facts of the case necessary to dispose of this Writ petition are as follows:- The second respondent was employed as a watchman in the writ petitioner's company. While so, on 06.05.1998 at about 7.30 p.m, the second respondent was caught red-handed by another watchman while committing theft of 3.5 kgs of pepper from the petitioner's estate. On the date of 06.05.1998, the watchman had already taken permission to leave the factory from 3.30 p.m, but he committed the theft during that permission period. Therefore, show cause notice was issued, and thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. As per the domestic enquiry, charges were proved against him and the disciplinary authority removed him from service. A criminal case was also registered against the second respondent for the commission of the offence of theft. Challenging the order of removal from service, he raised an industrial 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012dispute before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the Industrial Dispute by passing an award to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Management.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent was employed as a watchman in the Oleoresin Plant of the petitioner's company. While so, he obtained permission at 3.30 p.m to leave the factory on 06.05.1998. However, on the same day at 7.30 p.m, while he was in illegal possession of 3.5 kgs of pepper and he was caught red-handed by another watchman. Therefore, a charge memo was issued to him, and he also filed his explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were proved against him, and he was removed from service. Challenging the said order, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore and the Labour Court without considering the gravity of the charge and the witnesses examined on the side of the management, 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012erroneously held that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is against the law, and the same is liable to be set aside.4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent had been working as a watchman in the Tea estate of the petitioner's Estate since 1998, and he was charged with the alleged theft of 3.5 kgs of pepper, for which a domestic enquiry was conducted. In fact, the petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner was an active member of the Nilgiris Jilla Plantation Mazdoor Sangh. Meanwhile, with the help of another watchman, one Thirupathy, who has an enmity against the second respondent, foisted a false case as against the second respondent, and charges against the petitioner have not been proved. In fact, after completion of work at about 3.30 p.m, after getting permission, when he was proceeded to his house, watchman Thirupathy told him that one Rajendra Singh wanted him to come to the factory. At that time, Thirupathy and Sundarraj had a bag containing pepper and foisted a false case against the second respondent. Before the Labour Court, the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012second respondent was examined as WW1 and A.V.Balakrishnan, WW2 were also examined. On the side of the second respondent Exs.W.1 to W3 were marked. On the side of the management MW.1 to MW.3 were examined and Exs.M1 to M13 were marked. The Labour Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence from both sides, correctly held that the charges levelled against the second respondent were not proved and ordered for re-instatement with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed.5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. In this case, there is no dispute that the second respondent was working under the petitioner's company and he was an active member of the trade union. As per the domestic enquiry, the charges were proved and the disciplinary authority also accepted the domestic enquiry report and passed order that the second respondent was dismissed from service. The Labour Court has passed order that the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012charges were not proved. This Court also perused the records and found that the charges against the second respondent is that he committed the theft of 3.5 kgs of pepper and was caught red-handed by another watchman Thirupathy. The said Thirupathy was examined as a witness in the enquiry proceedings. He was also examined as a department side witness. A criminal complaint was also lodged against the second respondent, and after trial, the said criminal case was ended with acquittal. Before the Labour Court, the said Thirupathy was examined as a witness. However, one Sundararaj, who was also accompanied by Thirupathy on the date of alleged occurrence has not been examined as a witness. Even as per the charge, there is no list of witnesses mentioned and what all the documents relied upon by the management has to be explained in the charge sheet. However, the domestic enquiry was conducted by examining the witnesses, and the said order had been challenged by the second respondent, through the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, after elaborate discussions, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is a well reasoned order and does not warrant interference by this Court.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 20127. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.02.01.2025Index: Yes/No.Internet/Yes/NodrlTo1. The Proceeding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.20918 of 2012P.DHANABAL.J.drl W.P.No.20918 of 2012and MPs.No.1 & 2 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 201502.01.20258/8