The ManagementAbiramam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.Rep. by its PresidentNo. 39 v. The Presiding OfficerLabour Court & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 28..7..2008Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No. 1554 of 1999The ManagementAbiramam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.Rep. by its PresidentNo. 39 Muslim BazaarAbiramamRamanathapuram District.. Petitionervs.1.The Presiding OfficerLabour Court Madurai2.K. Boopathy.. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsof the first respondent in its Award made in I.D. No. 172 of 1993dated 27.4.1998 and received by the petitioner on 21.9.1998 andquash the same.For Petitioner: Mr. Silambannan, SC for Mr.UmapathyFor Respondent 2 : Mr. S. Arunachalam for Ms.T.GirijaO R D E RHeard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties andhave perused the records.2.Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.4.1998 made in I.D. No.172 of 1993 wherein and by which the Labour Court directedreinstatement of the second respondent with backwages, servicecontinuity and other benefits, the Management has preferred thepresent writ petition. However, by the exercise of power underSection 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D.Act'], in respect of the charges, which were held to be proved, itdirected stoppage of increment for one year without cumulativeeffect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The second respondent was employed as a Typist by thepetitioner Management on 01.8.1983. Even though he was a Typist,he was entrusted with the work of "A" Class share transactions.Normally, the said work is given to Clerks and Accountants, whowould have been given a special training. But, though the secondrespondent was not having any special skill, he was directed to dothe work. He was suspended by an order dated 08.10.1991 on theground that he told his superior officer, "Go away. I know what Iwant I am doing." A charge-memo dated 12.12.1991 was given tohim containing 11 charges. But without conducting a properenquiry and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, hewas dismissed from service on 23.5.1992. 4.Thereafter, he raised a dispute and the matter was takenbefore the Labour Court which took up the dispute as I.D. N o. 172of 1993. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue withreference to the validity of the enquiry conducted by theManagement. By its order dated 18.6.1996, it set aside the enquiryconducted by the Management. Subsequent to the preliminary issue,evidence was let in afresh before the Labour Court. The secondrespondent examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 13 documents, viz,Exs. W.1 to W.13. On the side of the petitioner Management, twowitnesses were examined viz., M.W.1 and M.W.2 and filed 30documents, which were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.30. The LabourCourt, on the basis of the material both oral and documentary, heldthat the charges 1, 5, 8 and part of charge No. 10 alone have beenproved and the other charges were not proved. 5.In the present case, the serious charge against theworkman was that on 08.10.1991, when he was asked to show theregister of typed material, he told the Special officer in Tamil asfollows:"vd;d rhu; rj;jk; nghl;L ngRwP';f? ? ngh';f bjupa[J"This was considered to be a riotous conduct. Perhaps, irritatedby his behaviour, the Special Officer had taken the issue seriouslywhich finally resulted in multiplication of charges and the workmanwas also dismissed. 6.The Labour Court, after analysis of each charge, heldthat most of the serious charges were not proved. And for theproved charges, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionateand, therefore, it directed stoppage of increment for one yearwithout cumulative effect. 7.Mr. Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel submitted thatthe approach of the Labour Court was erroneous and the Labour Courtwas wrong in directing his reinstatement. He also submitted thatpending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay ofbackwages alone and there was no stay regarding reinstatement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The petitioner society filed I.A. No. 53 of 2004 in I.D.No. 172 of 1993 seeking to deposit a sum of Rs.77,708/- drawn infavour of the Labour Court in the light of the order dated31.12.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 2214 of 1999. Butthe workman stated that his claim came to Rs.1,84,335/- which was50% of the wages directed to be deposited. The Labour Court inview of the objection, refused to receive the said amount as it wasnot in terms of the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by this Court.9.With reference to the harsh language allegedly used bythe second respondent, it is necessary to refer to the judgment ofthis Court in The Management of English Electric Company of IndiaLtd., Madras v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras andanother 1975 (2) L.L.J. 430 and paragraph 7 reads as follows:-Para 7:"The Labour Court has considered this finding of theenquiry officer with regard to charge No. 5 and hascome to the conclusion that having regard to thevery conclusion of the enquiry officer himself, thatthere must have been provocation, the charge cannotbe said to have been serious if it has been heldproved. For the purpose of understanding thesubstance of the charge, it is necessary to statewhat exactly were the words that were said to havebeen used by the second respondent which accordingto the petitioner constituted disrespectful and rudebehaviour towards the superiors. The secondrespondent was alleged to have told one P.V.Ganesan,"rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg; ghu;j;Jf;nfh" ("SarithanPoya, Unnal Anathai Parthuko"). The witness insupport of this charge was one R. (Sic)Gopalakrishnan, who stated that on 7th April, around10.am he heard argument between Mr. P.V. Ganesan andC.S.Meenakshisundaram; he heard Meenakshisundaramtelling Ganesan: "rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg;ghu;j;Jf;nfh". Consequently all that was held provedbefore the enquiry officer was that the secondrespondent uttered those words to P.V. Ganesan.The question for consideration is whether thatevidence can be said to have established the charge.As I pointed out already, the enquiry officer hasheld that there must have been provocation for thesecond respondent using that language. If thatprovocation is admitted, certainly the charge withreference to the use of that language loses itsseverity and therefore it cannot be said to be aserious charge. As a matter of fact, the LabourCourt itself has pointed out that having regard tothe language generally used by labourers in Madras,the language employed by the second respondentnamely, "rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg; ghu;j;Jf;nfh" cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be said to be a rude or disrespectful language but anormal language prevalent among the labourersherein. I am unable to hold that the Labour Court,committed any error in this behalf. On the otherhand, the conclusion of the enquiry officer thatnotwithstanding the provocation which made thesecond respondent use this language, the chargeframed against him was proved, is certainly aperverse conclusion."10.Considering the fact that the other charges are minor andthe Labour Court having exercised its power under Section 11A ofthe I.D. Act to interfere with the punishment, this Court does notconsider the Award passed by the Labour Court as erroneous orillegal. In the light of the same, the writ petition isdismissed. Hence, the petitioner Management is directed tocomply with the impugned Award within a period of eight weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, therewill be no order as to costs. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriToThe Presiding OfficerLabour Court Madurai+1 cc To Mr. S. Arunachalam, Advocate, SR.40799+1 cc To Mr. Silambannan, Advocate, SR.40579W.P. No. 1554 of 1999 tej[co]gkg/8.8