Management of Paralai State, Parry Agro Industries Limited, Iyerpadi Post, Valparai (Taluk), Coimbatore District v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Coimbatore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.02.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.108 and 109 of 2000 andWMP No.171 & 30305 of 2000Management of Paralai State,Parry Agro Industries Limited,Iyerpadi Post,Valparai (Taluk), Coimbatore District. .. Petitioner in both WpsVs.1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Coimbatore.2.S.Raju .. Respondents in both WPsPrayer :Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records ofthe first respondent in I.D.No.360/96 and quash its award dated24.06.1999 and 18.08.1998 respectively. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravindran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.For Respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan - for R-2O R D E R The writ petitioner is a plantation management. Aggrieved bythe preliminary order in I.D.No.360/96, dated 18.08.1998 and thefinal award in I.D.No.360/96, dated 24.06.1999, the present writpetitions have been filed. 2. The writ petitions were admitted on 06.01.2000 and it wasordered recorded as follows in the WMP No.171/2000:"Counsel for the petitioner represents that the2nd respondent workman has already been reinstated andseeks for stay with respect to payment of backwages. Interim stay and notice."3. Subsequently, this court by an order dated 24.01.2001directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/-. On suchdeposit, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount was directed to be invested in anationalised Bank. Thereafter on 28.02.2005, this court directedthe renewal of the fixed deposit and the second respondent was alsopermitted withdraw the interest from the amount so deposited.4. Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner appearingfor M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co submitted that the impugned award and thepreliminary order suffers from very many irregularities and areliable to be set aside. But it must be stated here that evenbefore from 6.1.2000 (i.e. date of admission of the writpetition), the second respondent has been reinstated in service.The learned counsel submitted that with a view to avoid monthlypayment under section 17-B, he was reinstated was ordered and itwas also without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition.Yet considering the gravity of the charges alleged against thesecond respondent and the arguments advanced before this court,this court does not think that it was not a mere question ofavoiding monthly payment. It is also now admitted that theworkman has been in employment since last nine years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thelabour court was wrong in setting aside the domestic enquirysolely on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was willing toreceive the documents from the workman without reopening thecase. Therefore, the findings on the preliminary issue must beset aside. He also submitted that the Enquiry Officer though wasnot convinced of the plead of the workman, but yet received thedocuments. Therefore, there was no prejudice caused to theworkman. But, it must be stated that mere reception of documentwill not amount to admitting the substance of the document.Therefore, when the workman sought for reopening the case for thepurpose of introducing those document, they have a point in statingthat such document have to be marked either by way of reopeningthe evidence or through cross examination of the management'switnesses. Therefore, the labour court's finding that the enquiryofficer was unreasonable to reopen the enquiry. Introduction ofthe documents of the domestic enquiry is important in the lightof the proviso to section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Actwherein, it is clearly stated that when a dispute of nonemployment comes up for adjudication before the labour court, thecourt has to confine its adjudication only on the materialsavailable already on record. Therefore, the workman had tonecessarily introduce such of his documents in the enquiry.Further, the management is in no way prejudiced by the reopening ofthe enquiry. This court does not find any infirmity orirregularity in the preliminary order passed by the lower courtdated 18.8.1998. 6. After the preliminary order, on the side of the workmanthree witnesses were examined including the second respondent andon the side of the petitioner three witnesses were examined asM.Ws.1, 2 and 3. While the workman marked two documents namely,Exs.W-1 and W-2, on the side of the petitioner-management, 45documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-45. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The charges levelled against the workman was that heassaulted one Assistant Manager as he had grouse against the saidManager. Since it is a case of assault, the workman does notdeserve any sympathy. The labour court on a appreciation ofevidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion thatthe evidence of the workman side was consistent whereas, M.W.1,who was the Assistant Manager was not consistent in his oralevidence. He did not support his written complaint. Whereas inall other places, he had mentioned that he has slapped in the leftcheek but in his chief examination before the labour court he haddeposed that it was on the right cheek. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat the overall circumstances of the case had not been taken intoaccount and the labour court was too technical in disbelievingthe evidence of M.W.1, this court is unable to agree with the saidsubmission. In case of assault as alleged in the present case,and the allegation was that there was slapping, then, that hasto be stated with consistency. There is a world of differencebetween left cheek and the right cheek. In all other proceedings,when M.W.1 had consistently mentioned that the slapping was onhis left cheek, it is not clear as to why he had said in thedeposition that it was on his right cheek. Even otherwise, thelabour court had held that there was no cause for the workman toassault the Assistant Manager as he was not in overall control ofthe affairs of the estate and it was the Deputy Manager and otherpersons who were incharge. The labour court on the basis ofoverall evidence came to the conclusion is consistent and thatthere was no abuse or assault on the Assistant Manager on16.8.1985. The management's first witness (M.W.1) who also gave acomplaint did not depose as per his complaint. In chiefexamination, he stated that the slap was on has right cheek whereasin all other places, he had stated that it was on his left cheek.When an domestic enquiry held by the management is set aside, theentire matter is before the labour court . If the parties also letin evidence afresh before the labour court the entire issue iswithin the realm of the labour court including appreciation ofevidence. This court in the exercise of its powers under Article226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such a finding offact. 9. In view of the same, the impugned award does not sufferfrom any infirmity or illegality. The labour court by itsimpugned award had directed reinstatement with continuity ofservice and full back wages. The petitioner-management has alsodeposited Rs.80,000/- of which, the workman had withdrawnRs.10,000/- in view of an interim order and the balance is in fixeddeposit. The workman has also been receiving interest on suchdeposit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The learned counsel for the management submitted that themanagement reinstated the workman without any prestige and becauseof the bona fide shown, the mulcing the management with fullback wages is onerous. The Labour court had also not stated asto why it has awarded full back wages for the period of nonemployment from 24.11.1995 till 24.6.1999 which is for a period of3 ½ years . This contention is well merited. In all cases, whenthe labour court directs back wages, it must also give reason forgranting full back wages. In that view of the matter, thequantum of back wages payable to the second respondent isrestricted to Rs.70,000/-. This is with a view to avoid theworkman being driven to filing a computation petition before thelabour court. Though before this court on behalf of the secondrespondent it was contended that back wages may come toRs.1.05,000/-, this court is of the opinion that back wages may berestricted to the amount of Rs.70,000/- which is also in deposit. 11. Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed ofaccordingly. It is open to the second respondent to withdrawRs.70,000/- including interest if any lying in deposit with thelabour court as full and final settlement of the amounts duetowards back wages. The award is confirmed in other respects. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.rj Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar ToThe Presiding OfficerLabour Court, Coimbatore.1 cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, SR.60701 cc to Mr.S.U.Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.6244 sa (co)dv/25.2. W.P.Nos.108 and 109 of 2000