Texmaco Ltd v. K.Mounsamy2.The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 02-12-2008Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.3129 of 2003 Texmaco Ltd. Rep. By its Sr.Vice-President,1050, Dhamodar Centre, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore... Petitioner. Versus1.K.Mounsamy2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to callfor the records in respect of the impugned award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.189 of 1999, dated27.8.2001 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan (R1)

O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Companychallenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999.

It has been stated that the first respondent had joined thepetitioner Company at Coimbatore, on 19.3.83. While so, in themonth of July, 1998, he had absented himself from duty withoutapplying for leave and without obtaining the prior permission fromthe management of the petitioner Company. Thus, the firstrespondent was unauthorisedly absent from duty, from 10.7.98. Afterhaving been absent from duty for more than 15 days, he had reportedfor work only on 27.7.98. Therefore, the management of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner Company had taken a decision to terminate the firstrespondent from service for his unauthorised absence from work formore than 15 days. Accordingly, the first respondent had beenserved with the termination order, on 27.7.98. Even though thefirst respondent had received the termination order without anyprotest and without seeking for a domestic enquiry, he had raisedan industrial dispute before the second respondent Labour Court inI.D.No.189 of 1999. The second respondent Labour Court had setaside the termination order and directed the reinstatement of thefirst respondent with continuity of service, backwages and allother attendant benefits, by its award, dated 27.8.2001. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner Company has filed the present writpetition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhad submitted that the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, in I.D.No.189 of 1999, is arbitrary, against theweight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The LabourCourt ought to have considered the fact that the first respondenthad absented himself from duty for more than 15 days, from 10.7.98till 26.7.98, unauthorisedly, and that he had deserved such apunishment. Further, during the month of June, 1999, the Coimbatore Office of the petitioner Company had been closed and allthe employees were given three months notice, as well as the salarydue to them. Therefore, the award of the second respondent LabourCourt, ordering reinstatement of the first respondent in theservice of the petitioner Company, is illegal, and it cannot besustained in the eye of law. Further, since the petitioner companyis not in existence from the month of June, 1999, the orderreinstating the petitioner in service cannot be implemented. Insuch circumstances, the award of the second respondent LabourCourt, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999, is devoid ofmerits.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the firstrespondent employee. However, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the first respondent had submitted that the secondrespondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that thedismissal of the first respondent from the services of thepetitioner Company, is illegal and void. Therefore, the secondrespondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 27.8.2001,directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, withcontinuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. Thesecond respondent Labour Court had rightly exercised itsdiscretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, in granting the award in favour of the firstrespondent. Since the petitioner Company had passed an order forthe alleged unauthorised absence of the first respondent, withoutgiving a show cause notice to the first respondent and withoutgiving him an opportunity to put forth his case, the said order isclearly contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had rightly setaside the said order and ordered the reinstatement of the firstrespondent in the services of the petitioner Company, withcontinuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In view of the submissions made on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as the first respondent and on a perusal of therecords available, this Court is of the considered view that thepetitioner Company has not shown sufficient cause or reason forthis Court to interfere with the award of the second respondentlabour Court, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999.