Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the lightof the same, the writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. His explanation provided in the affidavit and a similar stand taken before the respondent cannot stand scrutiny of law. A trade Unionleader has no right to act differently than that of other workman. Whenthere are service rules, with reference to leave have been specifically…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.07.2008CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5670 of 1999S.Maran..Petitioner Vs.
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District... Respondents Prayer :Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedingsNa.Ka.No.M3/4802/97 dated 27.10.1997 and the order passed by the 1strespondent in Proceedings G1/106780/97 dated 07.01.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. For Petitioner ::Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondents ::Mr.V.Selvanayagam (R1&R2)
O R D E RThe petitioner who was working as an Assistant under the second respondent Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil SuppliesCorporation, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.10.1997 removing him from service and confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 07.01.1999.2. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondentCorporation as a helper on 10.01.1975, thereafter was promoted as JuniorAssistant in 1979 and as an Assistant in 1984. The petitioner who originally worked at Kumbakonam was posted to Tanjore and subsequent to his joining the station, he claimed that he became the General Secretaryof the Trade Union to which he belonged, which necessitated him to leave the station often for union work. He started taking several leave without informing the officers and merely intimating about his absence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner from 09.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 took medical leave and earned leave, from 16.12.1995 to 10.03.1996, he was kept under compulsory wait seeking for posting in some other station. Again from11.03.1996 to 31.08.1996, he took earned leave. From 01.09.1996 to14.10.1997, he sought for employment and kept under compulsory wait. The department taking note of the frequent absence of the petitioner, especially for the period from October 1995 to October 1997 he has taken736 days leave without permission in a period of two years, framed acharge against him. The petitioner informed the respondent that he being the Union leader, requires his absence many times. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted and the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Taking note of the unauthorised absence of the petitioner continuously, he was removed from service by the order dated 27.10.1997 by the second respondent. As against the said order, he had filed an appeal on 04.11.1997. The said appeal was also dismissed by the first respondent by the order dated 07.01.199.Thus, he is before this Court.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that he has been making request to the respondent, being the State General Secretary of the Union to be stationed at Headquarters so that he can have frequent meeting with the officials and when that is not forthcoming, he was forced to take leave. It was also stated by him that his representation to be posted at Chennai was not considered and he has been victimised, being an office bearer of a tradeUnion, having affiliation to a particular political party.
Operative part
His explanation provided in the affidavit and a similar stand taken before the respondent cannot stand scrutiny of law. A trade Unionleader has no right to act differently than that of other workman. Whenthere are service rules, with reference to leave have been specifically provided for, he cannot stand on a higher pedestal than the other workman with a defence that he was forced to take leave because of union work. This kind of defence taken by the petitioner will have no sympathy from any forum including form this Court. When a charge was framed specifically and the petitioner does not have any specific defence and he has been imposed with the punishment of removal and the appellate authority also having rejected the same, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the said punishment in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in arecent Judgment in the case of L & T KOMATSU LTD., VS. N.UDAYAKUMARreported in 2008 (1) SCC 224 held that unauthorised absence must beviewed seriously and even labour Court having power under Section 11Acannot invoke the power to interfere with the punishment. In the light of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rgTo1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.2. Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.36517.1 cc To Mr.V.Selvanaayagam, Advocate, SR.35824. W.P.No.5670 of 1999 SP(CO)RVL 16.07.2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the lightof the same, the writ petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.