THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Management of Rani Mangammal Transport CorporationRep. by its Managing DirectorDindigul. 624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06..07..2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUWrit Appeal No.788 of 2004andW.A.M.P. No.1448 of 2005A.Anthonidoss... Appellant/ Second RespondentVs.1. The Management of Rani Mangammal Transport CorporationRep. by its Managing DirectorDindigul. 624 002... Respondent/ Writ Petitioner2.The Presiding OfficerLabour Court, Trichy.... Respondents/ Ist RespondentThe Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent as against the Order of the learned single Judge dated20.02.2004 made in W.P.No.10165 of 1996 Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in itsaward in I.D.No.280/1995 dated 11.12.1995 and quash the same.For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, SC for Ms.AL.GanthimathiFor 1st Respondent : No representationJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by ELIPE DHARMARAO, J.)This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learnedsingle Judge dated 20.02.2004 and made in W.P.No.10165 of 1996wherein and by which the learned Judge set aside the Award dated11.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.198 of 1993, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was re-numbered as I.D. No.280 of 1995, filed against the order ofremoval of the appellant from service.2.The second respondent in the main writ petition, whojoined as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation, was suspendedfrom service on the allegation of having received bribe and enquirywas conducted after framing of charges in which he was found guilty,subsequent to which, punishment of dismissal from service wasimposed on him. As against the same, he raised an IndustrialDispute in I.D. No.198 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court,Madurai, which was transferred and re-numbered as I.D. No.280 of1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli [hereinafterreferred to as 'I.D. No.280 of 1995]. The petitioner Managementfiled a counter requesting that the validity of the domestic enquirymay be decided as a preliminary issue and for an opportunity to leadadditional evidence in case the Labour Court came to the conclusionthat the domestic enquiry was vitiated. 3.The Labour Court has itself gone into the matter and onre-appreciation of the entire evidence adduced before the EnquiryOfficer and also the Enquiry Report, came to the conclusion thatdomestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner andheld that non-employment of the petitioner was not justifiable.As against the Award dated 11.12.1995 made in I.D. No.280 of 1995,the Management filed the writ petition. 4.The learned Judge, on consideration of the contentionsraised by both sides, following the judgment of the Supreme Courtreported in AIR 1963 SC 295 [The Management of Ritz Theatre(Private) Ltd. vs. Its Workman], which was followed by aDivision Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1984 WLR165 [India forge and Drop Stamping Ltd. vs. The PresidingOfficer, Additional Labour Court, Madras and another], held that theLabour Court ought to have given the petitioner Management anopportunity to adduce additional evidence and that since therespondent has been reinstated in service without prejudice to therights of the parties in the writ petition, his interest will alsonot suffer if the matter is remitted for giving the petitioner anopportunity to adduce additional evidence and a time frame is fixedfor disposal and accordingly, set aside the Award passed by theLabour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to disposeof I.D. No.280 of 1995 after giving an opportunity to the parties toadduce additional evidence and pass final orders within three monthsfrom the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Aggrieved atthe same, the Management has preferred the present appeal.5.We have heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counselleading Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for theappellant and have perused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellantsubmitted that the Labour Court, considering the whole issue onmerits, arrived at the conclusion that non-employment of theappellant was not justifiable and further holding that the domesticenquiry was vitiated, ordered for reinstatement of the appellantwith continuity of service and backwages. Therefore, the learnedJudge should not have remanded the matter back to the Labour Courtfor giving opportunity to the Management for adducing additionalevidence, which is contrary to law and prayed for interference ofthis Court.7.A perusal of the Award would show that the Labour Courtmainly relied on Ex.M.1, report of the Checking Inspector, which wasmarked on the side of the Management. The relevant portion inparagraph 9 of the Award passed by the Labour Courts reads asfollows:"In Ex.M.1, it is stated that the conductor of theprivate bus gave the money and the petitionerreceived the amount and placed in the ticket bookwithout unfolding it, but in the enquiry, M.W.1stated that the petitioner was caught red handedwhile the money was in his hand". Therefore, it is clear that in view of the above, the Labour Courtcame to the conclusion that on doubt only the Enquiry officerconcluded that the charges were proved and held that the dismissalof the appellant from service on the basis of the enquiry report wasnot proper.8.Further, the Labour Court, after re-appreciating theevidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, was satisfied thatthere is a contradiction in the evidence of the Management withregard to Ex.M.1 and passed the Award setting aside the dismissal ofthe appellant and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity ofservice and backwages. The Labour Court has also observed thatthe domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. On theother hand, it could be understood that it is not the view of theLabour Court that the enquiry was not conducted properly but theevidence was not properly appreciated by the enquiry Officer beforesubmitting his report and findings. Even otherwise, the judgmentof the Supreme Court on which the learned Judge relied on, held thatif the departmental enquiry held by the employer is not fair in thesense that proper charge had not been served on the employee orproper or full opportunity had not been given to the employee tomeet the charge, or the enquiry has been affected by other graveirregularities vitiating it, the Tribunal would be entitled to dealwith the merits of the dispute as to the dismissal of the employeefor itself. Therefore, based on the evidence available on recordor materials available on record, the Labour Court has passed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order. Therefore, we are not able to appreciate the reasongiven by the learned Judge in remitting the matter and we areunable to agree with the same while the Award was passed consideringthe merits of the dispute. We are also satisfied that remittingthe matter by the learned Judge for adducing evidence isunwarranted.9.In the light of the above, the appellant succeeds and thewrit appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Judgeand confirming the Award passed by the Labour Court. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1. The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtTrichy2. The Section Officer,VR Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc to M/s. A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 40764 W.A.No.788 of 2004 AD (CO)kk 23/7