Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Dn.III) LtdKancheepuramrep. By its Managing Director v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Chennai – 600 0062. S. Gunasekaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22-01-2009CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P. No. 7726 of 2004Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Dn.III) LtdKancheepuramrep. By its Managing Director .. PetitionerVersus1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Chennai – 600 0062. S. Gunasekaran .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.For Petitioners:Mr. T. ChandrasekaranFor Respondents :Mr. C. Manohar for R2 R1 : CourtORDERThe petitioner has come forward with this writ petition prayingfor a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the firstrespondent in I.D. No. 406 of 1998 dated 10.11.2003 and quash thesame.2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are asfollows:-The second respondent herein was appointed on 22.04.1987 as Clerkin the canteen run by the Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation.Thereafter, he was transferred to the canteen of newly formedpetitioner corporation. An audit was conducted in which certaindiscrepancies were found, for which a charge memo, Ex.M3 dated26.10.1994 containing 15 charges was issued by the petitioner to thesecond respondent. The crux of the charges against the secondrespondent was that he did not maintain the accounts properly, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased the milk at higher rates from changing one society to theother, such societies were not in existence. The second respondentsubmitted his explanation, Ex.M4 dated 14.11.1994 denying all thecharges and contended that he was not the deciding employee to decidewhere the milk has to be purchased and it is the branch manager whohas to decide the same and to maintain proper account. After receiptof the explanation, the petitioner appointed an enquiry officer, whosubmitted his report, Ex.M7 dated 19.06.1996 holding that all thecharges against the second respondent are proved except charge Nos.5, 7, 12 and 15. On receipt of Ex.M7, the petitioner has issuedsecond show cause notice, Ex.M8 dated 29.06.1996 without enclosingthe report of the enquiry officer for which explanation was alsosubmitted by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner haspassed the order of dismissal, Ex.M10 dated 26.08.1996. Aggrieved bythe said order of dismissal dated 26.08.1996, the petitioner hasfiled I.D. No. 406 of 1998 before the first respondent/Labour Court.3.Before the Labour Court, the second respondent examinedhimself as WW1 and marked Exs. W1 to W19 on his side. On behalf ofthe petitioner, K. Veeraraghavan, Auditor who conducted audit wasexamined as MW1, one K.S. Thiagarajan was examined as MW2 and Exs. M1to M10 were marked. 4.The second respondent contended before the labour court thathe has not committed any misconduct, even the Enquiry officer has notgranted permission to him to have the assistance of a lawyer, whenthe person who presented the case on behalf of the other side hadlegal knowledge. In the bye-laws of the petitioner corporation, theduties and responsibilities of each and every employee is prescribed,in which the maintenance of accounts and purchasing of materials forthe canteen comes under the duty of the branch manager, but insteadof taking action against the said branch manager, disciplinaryproceedings were erroneously and deliberately initiated against him.Further, the petitioner has not furnished the copy of the report ofthe enquiry officer along with the second show cause notice, whichhas prejudiced him as he was prevented from giving effectiveexplanation, hence, the subsequent order of dismissal passed by thepetitioner is vitiated.5.The petitioner herein contended that fair opportunity wasafforded to the second respondent, who was incharge of the accountsand purchase of items required for running the canteen and because ofthe act of commission and omission of the second respondent, thecorporation sustained loss, hence, considering the evidence, theorder of dismissal was rightly passed by the management.6.The labour court, considering the submission of both sidesand the evidence available before it found that the canteen was underthe control of the Branch Manager. The labour court took adverseinference against the corporation for not producing the bye law orstanding order and came to the conclusion that the second respondentwas made as a scape-goat. It was also found by the labour court thatthe petitioner not taken note of the fact that the second respondentcannot act independently but only carry out the instructions given tohim by the branch manager and ultimately directed the petitioner toreinstate the second respondent with back wages and continuity of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service. Aggrieved by the award passed by the labour court, thepresent writ petition is filed by the Corporation.7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submittedthat the award passed by the labour court is vitiated by errors oflaw; that the labour court has not taken into consideration of thecharges against the second respondent, which are grave and proved,while so, interfering with the punishment imposed by the management,without any valid reason, is unsustainable in law; that the labourcourt erroneously found that the enquiry was not conducted in a fairand proper manner; that the findings of the labour court that thecanteen was under the control of the branch manager is factuallyincorrect and prayed for setting aside the award of the labour court.8.On the above contention, this Court heard the learnedcounsel appearing for the second respondent, who submitted that non-furnishing of enquiry report along with the second show cause noticehas adversely affected the second respondent from giving effectiveexplanation, hence, the order of dismissal is vitiated; that thepetitioner has deliberately not produced the bye-laws of thecorporation as it is aware that the second respondent was notresponsible for the alleged violation; that instead of taking actionagainst the branch manager, the petitioner has deliberately initiatedaction against the second respondent; that the labour court,considering the above said vital factors has rightly interfered withthe punishment and ordered for reinstatement with all consequentialbenefits and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9.It is not in dispute that while issuing the second showcause notice, the petitioner has not furnished the copy of thereport, Ex.M7 dated 19.06.1996. It is submitted by the secondrespondent that non-furnishing of Ex.M7 has prejudiced him as hecould not submit an effective explanation, hence, the finding of thelabour court that the order of dismissal is vitiated cannot be saidto be incorrect.10.The second respondent disowned his responsibility ofmaintaining accounts and effecting purchase of items required forrunning the canteen. Considering it, the labour court directed thepetitioner to produce the bye-laws, but the same was not produced.Even for non-production of the bye-laws, the petitioner has notassigned any valid reasons. In the above circumstances, whenconsidering the specific plea of the second respondent that theBranch Manager alone is responsible for maintenance of the accountsas well as purchase of materials required for running the canteen,this Court is of the view that non-production of bye law assumesimportance. Moreover, the petitioner has not proved the chargesagainst the second respondent, hence, the punishment imposed by thepetitioner is liable to be set aside, which was rightly done by thelabour court.11.For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the viewthat there is no necessity to interfere with the well consideredaward passed by the labour court and accordingly the award passed bythe labour court is confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.It is brought to the notice of this Court that as directedby this Court, the petitioner has deposited the entire back wages outof which, the second respondent has withdrawn 25% of the amount. Inview of the dismissal of this writ petition, the second respondent ispermitted to withdraw the remaining amount deposited by thepetitioner. The petitioner is also directed to give all theconsequential benefits to the second respondent, which he is entitledto.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar rshToThe Presiding OfficerLabour CourtChennai – 600 0061 CC To Mr. C. Manohar, Advocate, SR NO.27131 CC To Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR NO.3517WP No. 7726 of 2004ssn(co)pmk/10.2.2009.