The Management,Puratchithalaivar M.G.R.Transport,Corporation Now renamed asTamilnadu State Transport Corporation,(Villupuram Div.III) Limited,Kancheepuram v. Thiru.P.Anjalam & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 20-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.1821 of 2004The Management,Puratchithalaivar M.G.R.Transport,Corporation Now renamed asTamilnadu State Transport Corporation,(Villupuram Div.III) Limited,Kancheepuram... Petitioner.Versus1.Thiru.P.Anjalam2.The Presiding Officer,Second Additional Labour Court,Chennai... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling forthe records, dated 18.9.2002, made in I.D.No.812 of 1993, on the fileof the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the second respondentherein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.KamalanathanFor Respondents : Mr.K.M.RameshO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andthe learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award ofthe second respondent Labour Court, dated 18.9.2002, made inI.D.No.812 of 1993.3. It has been stated that the first respondent had beenappointed as a Conductor in Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation,on 24.10.1984. Subsequently, he had been transferred to thepetitioner Corporation, on 1.4.1992. While so, on 15.4.1992, afterhaving collected the fare from two passengers, the first respondenthad not issued tickets to them. Further, there was a shortage ofRs.60.90 in the cash bag. Hence, a charge memo had been issued to thefirst respondent, on 24.4.1992. The first respondent had submittedhis explanation, on 1.5.1992. Not satisfied with the explanationsubmitted by the first respondent the petitioner Corporation hadordered an enquiry to be conducted against the first respondent. Theenquiry had been conducted against the first respondent, inaccordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officer had submitted his report, on 12.8.1992, alleging that thecharges levelled against the first respondent had been proved.Thereafter, a second show cause notice had been issued to the firstrespondent, on 4.2.1993. The first respondent had submitted hisexplanation, on 17.2.1993. On considering the evidence on record, thefirst respondent had been dismissed from service, on 17.3.1993. Hislast drawn salary was Rs.2750/-. The first respondent had challengedthe order of dismissal passed against him before the secondrespondent Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute.4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitionerCorporation it was contended that while the first respondent was onduty, on 15.4.1992, as a conductor in the bus bearing RegistrationNo.TN-31-0028, plying in the route No.79, he had collected the farefrom two passengers, but had failed to issue the tickets to them.Thus, he had misappropriated the money belonging to the petitionerCorporation. Further, there was a shortage of Rs.60.90 in the cashbag. Hence, he was suspended from service and a charge memo had beenissued to him. The explanation submitted by the first respondent wasnot satisfactory and therefore, he was dismissed from service, afteran enquiry had been conducted against him, in accordance with theprinciples of natural justice.5. It has been further stated that without considering thevalid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, thesecond respondent Labour Court, by its award, dated 18.9.2002, madein I.D.No.812 of 1993, had set aside the order of dismissal anddirected the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondentin service, with continuity of service, with backwages and otherbenefits. Aggrieved by the said award of the second respondent LabourCourt, dated 18.9.2002, made in I.D.No.812 of 1993, the management ofthe petitioner Corporation had preferred the present writ petitionbefore this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.6. The award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated18.9.2002, has been challenged by the petitioner Corporation, raisingvarious grounds. The award of the second respondent Labour Court iscontrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.The charges levelled against the first respondent were in relation toa grave misconduct and since the said charges had been proved againstthe first respondent, he had been dismissed from service, on17.3.1993. The domestic enquiry against the first respondent had beenconducted, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thefirst respondent had fully participated in the said enquiry and allopportunities had been given to him to defend himself against thecharges. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer hadsubmitted his findings holding that the charges were proved.Considering the gravity of the charges and the past records ofservice, the first respondent had been dismissed from service. 7. It has been stated that the second respondent Labour Courthad failed to note that the Checking Inspector had submitted hisreport, along with the statement of the passengers who had not beenissued the tickets by the first respondent after collecting the farefor their travel. Further, the second respondent Labour Court hadcommitted an error in holding that the petitioner Corporation had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ failed to examine the individuals who had given the statements to theChecking Inspector. Further, the second respondent Labour Court hadfailed to note that the petitioner Corporation could not produce theinvoice and the ticket books since the life time of the said recordswas only one year. The second respondent Labour Court had also failedto consider the evidence of M.W.1 and Exs.M1 to M.7, according towhich there was sufficient proof to confirm the charges levelledagainst the first respondent. Further, the second respondent LabourCourt had also erred in exercising its power, under Section 11A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner Corporation is that the second respondentLabour Court had erred in holding that the non-examination of thepassengers to verify the statements made by them, with regard to thenon-issuance of the tickets by the first respondent and the fact thatthe Checking Inspector had not been examined would go against thepetitioner Corporation, in its attempt to prove the charges levelledagainst the first respondent. The Labour Court had also come to thewrong conclusion that the non-production of the invoice books and theticket books, by the petitioner Corporation, before the Labour Court,would lead to adverse inference. Therefore, the findings of thesecond respondent Labour Court that the charges levelled against thefirst respondent had not been proved is contrary to the evidence onrecord and the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, theaward of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 18.9.2002, isliable to be set aside.9. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thefirst respondent had stated that in spite of an opportunity havingbeen given to the petitioner Corporation, to prove the chargesagainst the first respondent by way of re-enquiry before the secondrespondent Labour Court, pursuant to the common order, dated21.6.2002, passed by this Court, in W.P.Nos.4863 and 4864 of 1995 andW.P.No.17439 of 1996, directing the Labour Court to conduct a re-enquiry and to pass final orders thereon, the petitioner Corporationhad miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the firstrespondent. The second respondent Labour Court has rightly come tothe conclusion that the non-examination of the passengers and theChecking Inspector were fatal to the case and thus, the chargeslevelled by the management of the petitioner Corporation against thefirst respondent would be unsustainable in the eye of law. Theadverse inference drawn by the second respondent Labour Court due tothe non production of invoice books and the ticket books is inaccordance with law and the rulings of the Apex Court.10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, as well as thefirst respondent and on a perusal of the records available, thisCourt is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shownsufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the awardof the Labour Court, made in I.D.No.812 of 1993. 11. The non-examination of the passengers, who had made thestatements, with regard to the non issuance of the tickets by thefirst respondent, after having received the fare for the tickets and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the failure to examine the checking inspector had caused a seriousflaw in the procedures adopted by the petitioner Corporation, inattempting to prove the charges levelled against the firstrespondent. Even though it has been admitted by the petitionerCorporation that the invoice books and the ticket books should havebeen available with the petitioner Corporation, its failure toproduce the same, at the time of enquiry, before the secondrespondent Labour Court had compelled the said Court to draw adverseinference against the petitioner Corporation and to arrive at thefinding that the charges levelled against the first respondent hadnot been proved. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner management cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances,the award of the second respondent Labour Court, made in I.D.No.812of 1993, stands confirmed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar cshToThe Presiding Officer,Second Additional Labour Court,Chennai.+ 1 cc to M/s.V.R.Kamalanathan,Advocate,SR.16849+ 1 cc to Mr.K.M.Ramesh,Advocate.SR.15664Writ Petition No.1821 of 2004SAI(CO)EM/8.6.09