The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd., Bharathipuram Dharmapuri v. Manickam & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.12.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.3843 of 2003 The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Salem Division II) Ltd.,BharathipuramDharmapuri .. Petitioner vs. 1. Manickam2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem .. RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari to call for the records, dated 11.5.2002 and made inI.D.No.268/2000 on the file of the labour Court, Salem the secondrespondent herein, and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.M.Ravibharathi For Respondents : Mr.Mr.V.Bhiman for R1 labour Court -R2O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award ofthe second respondent labour Court, dated 11.5.2002, made inI.D.No.268 of 2000. It has been stated that the first respondentherein had raised an industrial dispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000,before the second respondent labour Court, to set aside the orderof dismissal issued on him, on the ground that it is against thelaw and the principles of natural justice. The first respondent had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimed reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service andother attendant benefits. 3. It has been submitted that the first respondent had joinedas a driver in the petitioner Corporation, on 30.6.1992. His lastdrawn salary was Rs.5,000/-, per month. While so, a charge memo,dated 6.12.1997, had been issued to the first respondent for hiscontinuous absent from duty, from 25.11.1997. The first respondenthas stated that though he did not receive the charge memo, thepetitioner Management had conducted an enquiry. A show causenotice, dated 28.5.1998, had been issued to the first respondentstating that the charges levelled against him had been proved.Therefore, he was dismissed from service, on 18.7.1998. The firstrespondent had also stated that he was absent from duty, from25.11.1997 to 12.2.1998, due to his sudden illness. He had alsostated, before the second respondent labour Court, that he hadsubmitted an explanation and that he was absent from duty as he wason leave, after appropriate intimation had been given to thepetitioner Management. It was alleged that the charge memo had beenissued without any basis and the first respondent had beendismissed from service without giving him sufficient opportunity todefend himself. 4. It has also been stated that the petitioner Corporation hadfiled a detailed counter statement, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, on thefile of the second respondent labour Court. In the said counterstatement it was contended that the first respondent was absentfrom duty, from 25.11.1997, without obtaining prior permission orsanction of leave. The said act of the first respondent hadresulted in dislocation in the operation of the buses by thepetitioner Corporation. An explanation had been called for from thefirst respondent, on 6.12.1997. However, the first respondent hadnot submitted his explanation. The first respondent was absent fromduty till 12.2.1998. However, he had participated in the enquiryand he had given evidence during the domestic enquiry. Thereafter,the enquiry report had been submitted by the enquiry officer, on15.4.1998, holding that the charges against the first respondenthad been proved. Therefore, a second show cause notice had beenissued to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondenthad submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with theexplanation submitted by the first respondent, he was dismissedfrom service by the Management of the petitioner Corporation. Insuch circumstances, the first respondent had raised an IndustrialDispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, before the second respondent labourCourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It has been further stated that the second respondentlabour Court, without considering the evidence on record, hadpassed the award, dated 11.5.2002, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, settingaside the order of dismissal, dated 18.7.1998, passed by theManagement of the petitioner Corporation, dismissing the firstrespondent from service and it had directed the petitionerCorporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages,with continuity of service and other benefits and had awarded thepunishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulativeeffect. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, dated 11.5.2002, made inI.D.No.268 of 2000, passed by the second respondent labour Court,the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present writ petition,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the award of the labour Court is contrary to law,weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The labourCourt had failed to note that the first respondent was absent fromduty without prior permission or sanction of leave, from 25.11.1997to 12.2.1998. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation had issued acharge memo, dated 6.12.1997, and an enquiry had been conductedfollowing the principles of natural justice. The first respondenthad participated in the enquiry and had defended himself. However,the enquiry officer had found that the charges against the firstrespondent had been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry, asecond show cause notice, dated 28.5.1998, had been issued to thefirst respondent. Therefore, the first respondent had submitted hisexplanation. Since the explanation submitted by the firstrespondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service, on18.7.1998. Thus, the order of dismissal, dated 18.7.1998, is inaccordance with law and the second respondent labour Court haderred in setting aside the same and imposing a lesser punishment ofstoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect, on thefirst respondent. Thus, the award of the second respondent labourCourt is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Since the firstrespondent had committed a grave misconduct by absenting himselfwithout obtaining the prior permission of the petitionerCorporation and without leave being sanctioned, the secondrespondent labour Court cannot invoke its discretionary power toreduce the punishment imposed on the first respondent. Further, thepast conduct of the first respondent had also been taken intoaccount before he was dismissed from service. The unauthorisedabsence of the first respondent from duty has caused disturbance inthe operation of the bus services operated by the petitionerCorporation, causing loss and hardship to the public at large.Therefore, the second respondent labour Court has erred in reducing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the firstrespondent by the petitioner Corporation, invoking Section 11-A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the firstrespondent.9. However, the learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent had submitted that the award of the labour Court is inaccordance with law and therefore, the writ petition filed by thepetitioner Corporation is devoid of merits and is liable to bedismissed. The second respondent labour Court had given sufficientreasons for reducing the punishment imposed on the firstrespondent. Since the punishment of dismissal from service imposedon the first respondent for his unauthorised absence isdisproportionate in nature, the labour Court had invoked itsdiscretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, to impose the lesser punishment of reduction ofstoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect.Further, the second respondent had denied the first respondent thebackwages due to him. In such circumstances, the award of thelabour Court reducing the punishment of dismissal from service,awarded to the first respondent, to that of stoppage of incrementfor one year, with cumulative effect, is proper and sustainable inlaw.10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the recordsavailable, this Court is of the considered view that the petitionerCorporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Courtto interfere with the award of the second respondent labour Court,dated 11.5.2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000, reducing thepunishment imposed on the first respondent. The second respondentlabour Court had considered all the relevant factors before passingits award, dated 11.5.2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. Sufficientreasons had been shown by the second respondent labour Court beforecoming to its conclusions. The labour Court had found that eventhough a second show cause notice had been issued to the firstrespondent, with regard to his past conduct, no particulars hadbeen given therein. Thus, it was found that the extreme punishmentof dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent workmanwas disproportionate in nature. As such, the labour Court hadconcluded that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce thepunishment imposed on the first respondent from dismissal fromservice to that of reduction of stoppage of increment for one year,with cumulative effect. Further, the labour Court had also deniedthe backwages claimed by the first respondent. In suchcircumstances, it is clear that the contentions of the petitionerCorporation cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ declines to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated11.5.2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. Hence, the writ petitionstands dismissed. No costs. lan Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To:The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem1 cc to Mr.M.Ravibharathi, Advocate, SR.696601 cc to Mr.V.Bhiman, Advocate, SR.69805bk (co)dv/22.12.W.P.No.3843 of 2003