Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

WP.No.5713/2021pronounced on 19.03.2020, and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.V.PrakashSenior counsel for Mr.S.R.BubalachandranFor Respondent:Mr.S.Saiprasad forM/s.Sai Raaj AssociatesORDER(1)The writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, in AP.No.41/2016, granting approval of the dismissal order, passed by the respondent herein, dismissing the petitioner from service.(2) Facts in a nutshell:- The petitioner was appointed as Spot Welder Trainee on 07.06.2010. The petitioner's services were confirmed with effect from 01.10.2012. While so, the petitioner, as a General Secretary of Unipress India Thozhilalar Sangam, raised a dispute regarding the wage revision and the same was pending before the Labour Court, Chennai, in ID.No.9/2016. While so, the petitioner, as a member of the Canteen Committee, found that the food served to the employees on 29.06.2015, was inedible and so asked for alternate food. This conduct of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent and therefore, on 29.06.2015, the respondent issued a false Charge Memo to the petitioner. Based on the Charge Memo, enquiry proceedings were conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.05.2016. Thereafter, the respondent filed an Approval Petition in AP.No.41/2016 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, for approval of the dismissal order. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2020, allowed the Approval Petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.(3)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the Presiding Officer, of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, clubbed all issues, overlooking that he was bound to decide the fairness of the enquiry separately as a preliminary issue. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated since the very foundation of the enquiry, namely, the Charge Memo, was vague and bereft of particulars. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the copy of the complaint, namely, Ex.M2, was not 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021annexed with the Charge Memo and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of submitting a proper reply to the Charge Memo, which resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. On the merits of the matter, the learned Senior counsel, submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, since the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the material evidence. For all the above said reasons, the learned Senior counsel prayed for quashment of the impugned order dated 19.03.2020.(4)The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner did not raise any plea on the vagueness of the charges, but participated in the disciplinary proceedings without any demur and therefore, the said contention is only an after-thought. On the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that non-furnishing of the complaint copy vitiated the enquiry proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the Show Cause Notice was a replica of the complaint, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the Model Standing Orders, it was not incumbent to enclose a copy of the complaint along with the Charge 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021Memo/Show Cause Notice. The learned counsel submitted that in any event, the author of the complaint was examined as MW1 in the enquiry and the petitioner also had an opportunity to cross-examine him. On the merits of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the scope of enquiry in an Approval Petition was restricted to examining whether a prima facie case was made out and not proof to the hilt. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not remedy less as the petitioner was entitled to challenge the dismissal order in the 2A dispute. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the writ petition lacked merits and deserved to be dismissed.(5)Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.(6)A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has not framed the issues in accordance with the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemicals Works Ltd and Another, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004. Instead, the Tribunal has adopted its own procedure, clubbed all the issues together and passed a cryptic order granting approval to the dismissal order. The failure of the Tribunal to frame appropriate issues and to render a finding 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021on each of them is a clear violation of the jurisdictional parameters governing the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law governing the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunals in proceedings under Section 33[2][b] of the Act. In Lalla Ram's case [cited supra], the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to examine [1]whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held ; [2]whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on the legal evidence adduced before the Tribunal, exists ; and [3]whether the order of dismissal is bona fide and not vitiated by victimization or unfair labour practice on condition that the employer pays one month wages to the employee and within one month time, the employer should file the petition for approval, has also been stipulated. In the present case, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, has failed to frame proper issues and has also failed to render specific findings on the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and instead, clubbed all issues together and granted approval. Moreover, the learned tribunal failed to 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021give a finding on the statutory mandate of filing the application simultaneously or within such reasonable time as to form a part of the same transaction. This Court finds that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.(7)It is further pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in John D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2019 IV LLJ 513 SC, held as follows:-''31.This Court in the above cited decisions has, in no uncertain terms, divided the scope of enquiry by the Labour Court/Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction. Under Section 33[2][b] in two phases. Firstly, the Labour Court/Tribunal will consider as to whether or not a prima facie case for discharge or dismissal is made out on the basis of the domestic enquiry if such enquiry does not suffer from any defect, namely, it has not been held in violation of principles of natural justice and the conclusion arrived at by the employer is bona fide or that there was no unfair labour practice or victimization of the workman. This entire exercise has to be undertaken by the Labour Court/Tribunal on 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021examination of the record of enquiry and nothing more. In the event where no defect is detected, the approval must follow. The second stage comes when the Labour Court/Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry suffers from one or the other legal ailment. In that case, the Labour Court/Tribunal shall permit the parties to adduce their respective evidence and on appraisal thereof the Labour Court/Tribunal shall conclude its enquiry whether the discharge or any other punishment including dismissal was justified. That is the precise ratio-decidendi of the decisions of this Court in [i]Punjab National Bank, [ii]Mysore Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. and [iii]Lalla Ram's cases [supra].''(8)The Industrial Tribunal has conceived its own procedure of clubbing all issues and therefore the procedure adopted by the Industrial Tribunal is patently violative of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court. This Court is hence, of the view that the approval order suffers from procedural infirmities and therefore, liable to be set aside. This Court could very well remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. However, this Court desists from adopting the said course since this 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021Court finds no merit on facts also.(9)The facts leading to the issuance of the Charge Memo / Show Cause Notice dated 03.07.2015, are that, on 29.06.2015, during supper time of the night shift from 2.00 a.m., to 2.30 a.m., the petitioner complained that the idlis were too sour and prevented the workers who were eating in the Canteen from eating it. The petitioner further instigated the co-workers to squat before the Canteen premises in protest. At around 3.40 a.m., the respondent/Management provided rawa upma, the cost of which was borne by the respondent/Management. According to the respondent/Management the said conduct of the petitioner amounted to a misconduct punishable under Sections 16[1] and 16[5] of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Model Standing Orders and therefore, the petitioner was given four days time to submit his reply/explanation to the aforesaid Charge Memo/Show Cause Notice.(10)The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Charge Memo dated 03.07.2015, issued for the aforesaid incident, was bereft of particulars. The relevant portion of the Charge Memo reads as follows:-''mnj nghd;W fle;j 29/06/2015 ,ut[ c&pg;l; 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021md;Wk;;’admin Person jpU/utpf;Fkhh; czit gupnrhjpj;Jtpl;L czt[[[[[ ed;whf ,Ue;jjhy;’mij bjhHpuysu;fSf;F tH';f mDkjpj;Js;shh;/ czt[,ilbtsp (02/00 to 2/30 am) Muk;gpj;jt[ld; bjhHpyhsh;fs; czt[ cz;z Muk;gpj;jdh;/ mg;nghJ ePh; md;iwa czthd ,l;yp kpft[k; g[spg;ghf cs;sJ vd;W Twpa[s;sPh;fs;/ mjw;F admin Person jpU/utpf;Fkhh;. ,e;j czit ehd; ghpnrhjpj;Jtpl;nld; ed;whf ,Ue;jjpdhy;jhd; bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ Mdhy;ePh; mij bghUl;gLj;jhky; ,l;yp g[spg;ghf cs;sJ/ bjhHpyhsh;fs; ahUk; czt[cz;ztpy;iy vd;W bgha;ahd fhuzj;ij Twp Vw;fdnt czt[ rhg;gpl;L bfhz;oUe;j epue;ju bjhHpyhsh;fs;. Xg;ge;j bjhHpyhsh;fs;. kw;Wk; gapw;rp (Apprentice Trainee) bjhHpyhsh;fs; nghd;wth;fis czt[ cd;d ntz;lhk; vd;W jLj;J mth;fis nfz;Od;,y;,Ue;J btspna mDg;gpa[s;sPh;fs;/nkYk; md;W gzpapy; ,Ue;j security gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk; xg;ge;j bjhHpyhsh;fspy; xU gphptpdh; mnj czitjhd; rhg;gpl;ldh;/ nkYk; mJ ed;whf jhd; ,Ue;jJ vd;Wk; Twpdh;/ePh; czit cz;z kWj;jnjhL kl;Lky;yhky;rf 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021bjhHpyhsh;fisa[k; czt[ cz;z ntz;lhk; vd;W J}z;oa[s;sPh;fs;/ ,jid bjhlh;e;J ePh;midj;J bjhHpyhsh;fisa[k; miHj;Jf;bfhz;L canteen-f;F btspapy;cs;s eilghijia Mf;fpukpj;Jf;bfhz;L cl;fhh;e;jpUe;Js;sPh;fs;/ kw;Wk;fk;bgdpapy; jukhd czt[ mspj;j ,e;j njjpapy; (29/06/2016) nkYk; cw;gj;jp ghjpf;fhky; ,Ug;gJ bghUl;L ,J Fwpj;J eph;thfk; bkd;nkYk; bghpJgLj;jhky; ,Uf;f. rhg;gpLtjw;F khw;W czthf uth cg;g[kh Rkhh; 3/40 am kzpastpy; bfhz;Ltug;gl;L rhg;gplhky;,Ue;j bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F tH';fg;gl;lJ/ gpd;dh; Rkhh; 04/10 kzpastpy; bjhHpyhsh;fs;j';fsJ gzp ,lj;jpw;F brd;wdh;/vdnt ePh; ntz;Lbkd;nw bgha;ahd jftiy TwpaJ kl;Lky;yhky;rf bjhHpyhsh;fisa[k; czt[cz;z ntz;lhk; vd;W Twpa[s;sPh;fs;/ c';fsJ ,e;j brayhy;cz;Qqtjw;F Vw;w czt[ tPzhdJ kl;Lky;yhky;epWtdj;jpd;mikjpahd NHYf;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;Js;sPh;fs;/ nkYk;c';fsJ brayhy;khw;Wczt[ jahhpj;jjd; K:yk; eph;thfj;jpw;F TLjy; brytpd';fis Vw;gLj;jp cs;sPh;fs;.''(11) A bare reading of the Charge Memo discloses that the Charge Memo is 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021as vague as vagueness can be. The respondent has not named even a single person who was instigated by the petitioner, in the Charge Memo. Moreover, even though a statement was made that the Engineers, security and contract employees who consumed the very same food, stated that the food was good, the names of the employees are not mentioned in the Charge Memo. In the Charge Memo, only a general statement is made regarding petitioner's instigation and the persons who certified the good quality of the food. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel, when the petitioner is accused of instigating several workmen against the respondent/Management, the respondent could have named few of the workmen who were instigated by the petitioner. So also, when the respondent stated that some of the workmen consumed food and declared good, the said persons ought to have been named in the Charge Memo. The Charge Memo is merely a general statement imputing allegations against the petitioner. The vagueness of the charges has caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner, as he was deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In the absence of specific and definite allegations, the petitioner could not effectively meet the case set 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021up against him.(12)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surat Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 : 1970 [3] sCC 548, observed that the charges must be precise and unambiguous and that, failure to supply clear particulars, renders the enquiry unsustainable. This Court finds that the Charge Memo does not disclose particulars for the petitioner to meet the allegations. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings initiated on the basis of the vague Charge Memo, cannot be sustained.(13)It is further to be noted that the complaint forming the substratum of the charges, was not annexed to the Charge Memo, thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to effectively refute the allegations. MW1, the author of the complaint dated 30.06.2015, in his cross examination held on 27.11.2015, categorically accepted that the complaint was given only on 30.06.2015 and that it was not annexed to the Charge Memo. It was the specific contention of the petitioner that Exs.M4, M5 and M6 were submitted subsequent to the issuance of the Charge Memo and that 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021they were created for the purpose of the case and hence, they were not annexed with the Charge Memo. These aspects were not at all considered by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner also contended that Exs.M3, M4 and M5 were not produced by the respondent in enquiry and that non-furnishing of the basic materials relied upon, strikes at the root of the enquiry. The following judgments clearly spell out that non-furnishing of documents deprives the employee an opportunity to defend himself and further vitiates the enquiry, rendering it void.(14)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Sharif [Dead] through LRs reported in 1982 [2] SCC 376, held that the delinquent employee is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India reported in 1986 [3] SCC 229. held that non furnishing of the relevant documents to the delinquent employee, strikes at the root of the enquiry and results in grave prejudice rendering the entire proceedings void.(15)The aforesaid facts, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel, demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer has merely accepted the 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021respondent's version without any independent assessment of the evidence, thereby exhibitng complete non-application of mind. (16)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in 2009 [2] SCC 570, held that an Enquiry Officer acts quasi-judicially and must independently analyze the evidence and cannot mechanically adopt the employer's case. This Court finds that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are passed mechanically and hence perverse.Consequently, the approval granted under Section 33[2][b] of the Act, on the basis of such defective findings, is illegal.(17)The explanation of the learned counsel for the respondent that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner since the Charge Memo is a replica of the complaint, cannot be countenanced in the teeth of the allegation of the petitioner that the complaint was obtained subsequent to the issuance of the Charge Memo. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner therefore stands vitiated not merely on procedural defects, but also for the substantive denial of justice. When the foundation of enquiry is unsustainable, any subsequent action including dismissal and 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021consequential approval order under Section 33[2][b] of the Act, cannot stand.(18)Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned Approval Order is defective based on the illegal enquiry, and is ex-facie illegal and liable to be set aside. (19)The writ petition is, accordingly allowed and the impugned Approval Order dated 19.03.2020 made in Approval Petition in AP.No.41/2016, granting approval to the dismissal order, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.21.11.2025APIndex: yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoSpeaking Order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoToUnipress India Pvt Ltd.,RNS-6, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, OragadamVadakkuppattu [Post]Sriperumbathur Taluk16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021Kanchipuram District 603 204.17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.5713/2021N.MALA, J.,APOrder inWP.No.5713/202121.11.202518