High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 18.09.2007 CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAMW.P. No.24093 of 2003andW.P.M.P. Nos.29670 of 2003 and 392 of 2007and W.V.M.P. No.73 of 20071. The General Manager, The Kumbakonam MutualBenefit Fund Ltd., No.145, Big Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001.2. The Branch Manager, Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., Tambaram Branch, 42, Shanmugam Road, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.... Petitioners..vs.. 1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai. 2. Sri S. Sadasivam (deceased) 3. Indirani 4. Ashokan 5. Arunthathi 6. Arul 7. Amaran 8. Achuthan 9. Aribabu10. Alla... Respondents(R3 to R10 are substituted in the place of the deceased 2nd respondent as per order dated 11.9.2007 in W.P.M.P. No.391 of 2007). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records ofthe first respondent in I.D. No.94/97 dated 18.2.2003 and quash thesame.For Petitioner : Mr. R. ParthibanFor Respondents : Mr. R. PrasadO R D E RChallenging the order dated 18.2.2003 passed by thefirst respondent-Labour Court in I.D. No.94/97, the petitioner-Management have brought forth this writ petition, whereby a writ ofcertiorari is asked for.2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing oneither side and looked into the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition along with grounds and also order under challenge. 3. The second respondent was employed by the petitioner-Management as Security Guard from 7.6.1992 onwards; that he was paida salary of Rs.1,010/- on contract basis from 7.6.1992; thatthereafter, he was made permanent by the first petitioner witheffect from 1.3.1993; that a charge memo was issued on the groundsof disobedience, insubordination and lack of character; that thesecond respondent applied for medical leave from 26.3.1995 to30.3.1995 due to illness and that when he reported for duty on31.3.1995, a termination order was served upon him. There arose anindustrial dispute before the first respondent-Labour Court andorders passed thereon, which is the subject matter of challengebefore this Court.4. The only prime contention put forth by the learnedcounsel for the writ petitioner-Management is that the Labour Courtrests its entire order only on the ground that after receipt ofexplanation following the issuance of charge memo, a domesticenquiry should have been conducted before passing an order oftermination, but not done in this case and thus, the order oftermination passed by the Management was bad and illegal and henceit was to be set aside.5. Learned counsel added further that even if the order oftermination was passed without domestic enquiry or some defects arenoticed in the enquiry, once the party was given an opportunity to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lead the evidence before the Labour Court, there is no question ofsetting aside the order of termination and remitting the matter backfor conducting domestic enquiry does not arise. Duty is cast uponthe Labour Court to consider the evidence adduced before it and passsuitable orders as one required in law. In the instant case, theLabour Court has not considered any part of evidence and set asidethe order of termination on the short ground that there was nodomestic enquiry before the order of termination. Hence, the orderof the Labour Court has got to be set aside.6. Contrary to the above, it is contended by the learnedcounsel for the respondents that in the instant case, the LabourCourt has considered all the aspects of the matter. When there wasa show-cause notice served upon the second respondent, anexplanation was placed by him. Not satisfied with the same, anorder of termination was passed. Before passing the said order, adomestic enquiry was to be conducted. Even as per the order, it wasconstrued, when the evidence was adduced before the Labour Court,it exercised its judicial mind after going through the evidenceavailable and passed the order under challenge. Hence the writpetition has got to be dismissed.7. After careful consideration of submissions made byeither side and looking into the legal position, the Court is of theconsidered opinion that the order under challenge has got to be setaside. It is not in controversy that the order of termination beingmet by the second respondent. The second respondent took it by wayof an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Courthas also given opportunity to adduce evidence oral and documentary,but the reading of the impugned order would clearly reveal that theLabour Court declared the termination order of the secondrespondent-workman is bad and illegal only on the ground of nonconducting of domestic enquiry before the order of termination waspassed. It has nowhere considered any part of the evidence, oraland documentary, adduced by the parties or any aspect of the matter.8. It is well settled principles of law that once theLabour Court has given an opportunity to adduce evidence, even nodomestic enquiry was conducted before the order of termination, thematter should not be remitted back to the Management for conductingdomestic enquiry and the Labour Court has to pass suitable orders onappreciation of available evidence, which was adduced and recordedby it. In the instant case, it is an admitted position before theLabour Court that both the parties are given opportunity to adduceevidence and they adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. Ifto be so, a duty cast upon the Labour Court to consider the evidenceand pass suitable orders as one required under law. 9. Hence an irresistible conclusion arrived at by this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is that the order of the Labour Court is not in accordancewith the aforesaid settled principles of law. Under suchcircumstances, without any hesitation, it has got to be set asideand it has to be remitted back to the Labour Court to consider andpass suitable orders on appreciation of evidence already recordedand available before it. With these observations, the order of theLabour Court is set aside and remitted back to the Labour Court topass suitable orders. In the instant case, the second respondent-employee is already died. Hence, his legal representatives havebeen added. Under the circumstances, it would be fit and proper toissue direction to the Labour Court to dispose of the matter withina period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. 10. The legal representatives of the second respondentare permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited, which wouldrepresent the subsistence allowance, to the credit of I.D. No.94 of1997 on the file of the Labour Court.11. With the above observations, the writ petition isdisposed of. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. Nocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarssa.ToThe Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court,Chennai.+1cc to Mr.R.Parthiban,Advocate Sr 58641+1cc to Mr.R.Prasadh, Advocate Sr 58350SCD (CO)km/1.10.W.P. No.24093 of 2003 andconnected W.P.M.Ps.