Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited,27, Railway Station New Road,Kumbakonam-612 001 v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 08-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.27286 of 2004Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited,27, Railway Station New Road,Kumbakonam-612 001... Petitioner.Versus1.The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Cuddalore.2.N.Vittal Raj.. Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ ofCertiorari, calling for the entire records culminating in thepassing of the award, dated 23.3.2004, on the file of the firstrespondent herein, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997, quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Gupta & RaviFor Respondents : Mr.S.Srinivasan (R2)O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed by the petitionerCorporation, challenging the award of the first respondent LabourCourt, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997.2. It has been stated that the second respondent was employedas a Driver in the petitioner Corporation. Due to his unauthorizedabsence during the months of February and March,1996, charge sheets,dated 4.3.1996 and 1.4.1996, had been issued to him. However, thesecond respondent did not submit any explanation for the chargeslevelled against him. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted inrespect of the said charges. The second respondent had participatedin the enquiry, wherein, he had admitted his unauthorized absencestating that it was due to certain medical reasons.3. During the enquiry, it was found that even after theissuance of the charge sheets, the second respondent had absented https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ himself during the months of April and May,1996. The enquiryofficer, by his findings, dated 4.6.1996, had come to the conclusionthat the second respondent was guilty of the charges levelledagainst him. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer andconsidering the past records of service of the second respondent,the management of the petitioner Corporation had issued a secondshow cause notice, dated 4.7.1996, to the second respondent,proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Thesecond respondent had submitted his explanation, dated 13.7.1996.Since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was notfound to be satisfactory, the second respondent was terminated fromservice, by an order, dated 11.10.1996. Aggrieved by the said order,dated 11.10.1996, the second respondent had raised an industrialdispute, before the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.14 of1997. The first respondent Labour Court by a preliminary order,dated 12.11.2001, had found that the domestic enquiry held againstthe second respondent was fair and proper and that the chargeslevelled against the second respondent had been proved. However, thefirst respondent Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of thesecond respondent in service, with back wages and with continuity ofservice, based on misplaced sympathy, in favour of the secondrespondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred thepresent writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhad stated that the first respondent Labour Court, while exercisingits power, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,ought not to have taken into consideration the extraneous factors,as the power is to be exercised judiciously. The Labour Court haderred in interfering with the punishment of dismissal from serviceimposed on the second respondent only on the ground that anopportunity ought to have been given to him to reform himself. Thus,it is clear that the first respondent Labour Court had interferedwith the punishment of dismissal imposed on the second respondentbased on misplaced sympathy, contrary to the decisions of the ApexCourt. The first respondent Labour Court had relied on the oralstatement of the second respondent workman that he was sufferingfrom ear pain and nervous disability, even though there was nomaterial on record in support of his claims. Once the absence of thesecond respondent was found to be unauthorized, the first respondentLabour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishmentimposed on the second respondent. Hence, the award of the firstrespondent Labour Court, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997,is liable to be set aside, as it is devoid of merits.5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhad further submitted that the enquiry, in respect of the chargeslevelled against the petitioner, had been conducted properly by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ following the principles established by law and the principles ofnatural justice. Since the delinquent workman had not produced anyevidence, either oral or documentary, to support his claim that hewas suffering from pain and discomfort in his left ear and that hehad nervous disability, the enquiry officer had come to theconclusion that the workman had been absent unauthorisedly. However,there was nothing shown on behalf of the second respondent that hehad requested the petitioner Corporation for alternate employmentand that such a request had been denied. There was no proof insupport of the statement made by the second respondent before theenquiry officer that he had made several representations to themanagement of the petitioner Corporation, with regard to his medicalproblems. Before imposing the punishment of dismissal from servicethe management of the petitioner Corporation had considered thesecond respondent’s previous service records, according to which hehad been punished on several previous occasions, on various charges,including the charge of unauthorized absence. The second respondenthad not intimated the management of the petitioner Corporation, nordid he obtain prior permission before he had absented himself,unauthorisedly. No leave application had been submitted by himrequesting for leave on medical grounds. 6. It is seen from the records available before this Court thatthe first respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated23.3.2004, in I.D.No.14 of 1997, reinstating the petitioner, withcontinuity of service, without back wages. The Labour Court hadfound that there were sufficient grounds for the second respondentto have been absent, even though such absence might have beenunauthorized. Proper reasons have been shown by the secondrespondent, during the domestic enquiry, to show as to why thesecond respondent had been absent from duty. Even though the secondrespondent had claimed that he had made several representations tothe management of the petitioner Corporation to give him analternate employment, on medical grounds, such representation hadnot been considered by the petitioner Corporation. However, thesecond respondent had been in employment of the petitionerCorporation for over 12 years and his dismissal from service by theorder of the management of the petitioner Corporation, dated11.10.1996, is disproportionate in nature. 7. The first respondent Labour Court had come to itsconclusions in its award, dated 23.3.2004, by giving sufficientreasons and the findings of the first respondent Labour Court cannotbe said to be without any basis. The first respondent Labour Courthad considered the various aspects of the matter in its properperspective and had come to the conclusion that the punishment ofdismissal from service, imposed on the second respondent workman,was disproportionate in nature. Even though the management of thepetitioner Corporation had considered the past records, from which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it could be seen that certain punishments had been imposed on thesecond respondent, on earlier occasions, based on various charges,including the charges relating to his unauthorized absence, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not beenin a position to show that the second respondent had been givensufficient opportunity to put forth his case before taking intoaccount his past records of service. 8. In such circumstances, it is clear that the management ofthe petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reasonfor this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondentLabour Court, dated 23.3.2004, made in I.D.No.14 of 1997. Hence, thewrit petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order asto costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Cuddalore.2.The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited,27, Railway Station New Road,Kumbakonam-612 001.TM(CO)km/30.4.Writ Petition No.27286 of 2004