High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015andM.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2015The Management,Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (Salem Division),Dharmapuri Regional,Bharathipuram,Dharmapuri – 05,Rep. by its Managing Director... Petitioner in all WPsVs.1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.2.The General Secretary, Salem, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode- Mavata Pokuvarathu & Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam, 89/408, S.Mullai Nagar, Suramangalam (P), Salem – 05.... Respondents in all WPsCommon Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.Nos.114, 160 & 101 of 2009 dated 05.02.2013 and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.M.AswinPage No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015(in all WPs)For 1st respondent(in all WPs):Labour CourtFor 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos.40347 & 40349 of 2015:Mr.N.S.SuganthanFor 2nd respondent in W.P.No.40348 of 2015:No appearance*****COMMON ORDERChallenging the common order passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Salem in I.D.Nos.114, 160 & 101 of 2009 dated 05.02.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions.2. The short facts are that the delinquents were employed as conductors under the petitioner management on 21.04.2003. They have entered in the Hosur Bus stand Depot in a drunken state and picked up an argument with the security guard. They have turned violent and assaulted the security guard. The entire incident happened in front of general public, which has resulted in the image of the petitioner management taking a beating. As a consequence of the violence, the matter was reported to the higher officials and the branch manager made a complaint Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015before the Hosur Police Station and an FIR was registered. Thereafter, the delinquents were charge sheeted and they were given an opportunity to put forth their explanations. The delinquents did not examine anyone on their side nor let in any documents. On the side of the petitioner management, witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. The enquiry officer gave a report stating that the charges framed against the delinquents stood prove. According to the petitioner, though the charges were serious in nature, considering the age and services of the delinquents, instead of dismissing them from service, the petitioner imposed a punishment of reduction of pay scale by three stages for 10 years. Challenging the above punishment imposed on the three delinquents, the 2nd respondent/Sangam raised an industrial dispute, which was taken on file as I.D.Nos.114, 160 & 101 of 2009 by the labour court. The labour court dispose of the said disputes by way of a common order. Both side chose not to examine anyone. On the side of the workers, 20 documents were marked. On the side of the petitioner management, 19 documents were marked. The labour court concurred with the report filed by the enquiry officer and held that the charges against the delinquents stood proved. However, exercising its power conferred u/s 11(A) of the Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015I.D. Act, the labour court modified the punishment by reducing the pay scale by 3 stages to be implemented for 3 years as against 10 years given by the petitioner management. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions before this Court.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitoiner management itself have taken a lenient view and instead of dismissing the delinquents from service, had awarded a minor punishment. The labour court had extended undue sympathy and further diluted the order and restricted the implementation of pay reduction to just for three years. Therefore, he submitted that the labour court was not justified in exercising its power u/s 11A of the I.D. Act and hence, he prayed to set aside the common impugned award passed by the labour court and restore the order passed by the petitioner management.5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos.40347 & 40349 of 2015 submitted that the labour court had also concurred the findings arrived by the petitioner management that the charges against the delinquents stood proved. The labour court was well Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015within its power to reduce the punishment if it so satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges framed against the delinquents. Therefore, he submitted that the award passed by the labour court does not require any interference and the same may be sustained.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.7. Though the petitioner management has stated in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petition that an FIR was registered against the delinquents, there is no mention of what happened thereafter. However, this Court is aware of the fact that the mere registration of FIR would not show that the delinquents were at fault. Before the enquiry officer, R.W.1, an official of the petitioner management has fairly accepted in his cross-examination that he has not witnessed the assault on the security guard, likewise, R.W.2 has also stated in his evidence that he was not an eye-witness to the incident. However, R.W.3, the victim, namely Vaiyapuri has stated in his evidence that he was assaulted by the Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015named delinquents. Being a victim himself, he would not leave the real perpetrators and name an innocent. Therefore, his evidence carries more weight and it is accepted. Moreover, one of the delinquents by name Raja has himself submitted that they were in a drunken state. Therefore, the charge against the delinquents that they were in an inebriated condition and picked up an argument with the security guard stands proved. 8. Having held that the charge against the delinquents stood proved, the labour court went on exercise of its power u/s 11A of the I.D. Act to reduce the punishment. The labour court has not given any convincing reason for exercising such powers. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner management themselves have shown sufficient leniency to the delinquents by awarding reduction of pay scale by 3 stages for 10 years instead of dismissing them from service. This Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner management that the charges against the delinquents are very serious in nature and certainly was misconduct, invites an order of dismissal. However, the petitioner management have shown leniency and given them a lesser punishment. The labour court was not justified in Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015interfering with the same.9. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the common award passed by the labour court in I.D.Nos.114, 160 & 101 of 2009 is set aside and the original order passed by the petitioner management against the delinquents is restored. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.18.03.2025Index : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNCC:Yes/NospToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Salem.Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 2015M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.Nos.40347 to 40349 of 201518.03.2025Page No.8 of 8