The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Salem Division II) Ltd.,BharathipuramDharmapuri 5 v. M.Murugayan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.12.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.3845 of 2003 The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Salem Division II) Ltd.,BharathipuramDharmapuri 5 .. Petitioner vs. 1. M.Murugayan2. 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 10.6.2002 made inI.D.No.811/1998, on the file of the labour Court, Salem, the secondrespondent herein, and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.M.Ravibharathi For Respondents : No Appearance for R1 labour Court - R2O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Norepresentation on behalf of the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitionerCorporation challenging the award of the labour Court, dated10.6.2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998. It has been stated that thefirst respondent had raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.811 of1998, under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,on the file of the second respondent, to set aside the order ofdismissal passed against the first respondent on the ground thatthe said order is contrary to law and the principles of natural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justice. He had prayed for reinstatement with backwages, continuityof service and other attendant benefits. According to the firstrespondent, he had joined as a Conductor in the service of thepetitioner Corporation in the year 1973. He was dismissed fromservice, after an enquiry had been conducted against him.Thereafter, based on a settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was reemployed, as a newentrant, as a helper with a consolidated salary of Rs.500/-.However, he had gone on leave, as he was injured while working inthe Tyre Retread Department. He had sent a medical certificate anda letter requesting for medical leave. A show cause notice, dated2.9.1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent hadsubmitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Not beingsatisfied by the explanation submitted by the first respondent, theManagement of the petitioner Corporation had dismissed him fromservice from 20.9.1996. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner Corporationhad filed a detailed counter statement in I.D.No.811 of 1998. Inthe said counter statement, it was contended that the firstrespondent was employed as a Conductor. He was dismissed fromservice based on the charges of collecting less fare from thepassengers and causing loss, vide order, dated 4.8.1992.Subsequently, he was reemployed as a helper, with effect from6.2.1993, pursuant to the settlement concluded, under Section 18(1)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent hadsubmitted his explanation stating that he was absent from duty onmedical grounds for the period from 26.7.1994. He was granted leavetill 24.9.1994. Thereafter, a telegram had been sent to himdirecting him to report for duty and informing that the medicalleave cannot be granted beyond 24.9.1994. Even thereafter, thefirst respondent had absented himself, continuously, without leaveand without permission, till 2.9.1995. Hence, a charge memo, dated2.9.1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent hadsubmitted his reply, dated 9.9.1995. 4. It has been further stated that since the explanationsubmitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, an enquirywas conducted against him, based on the charges levelled againstthe first respondent. The enquiry officer had submitted his report,dated 4.11.1995, holding that the charges against the firstrespondent were proved. A second show cause notice, dated6.11.1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent hadsubmitted his reply, on 20.3.1996. Since the explanation submittedby the first respondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed fromservice, on 20.9.1996. Thereafter, aggrieved by the orderdismissing him from service, the first respondent had raised anindustrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court, inI.D.No.811 of 1998. The second respondent labour Court, without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considering the evidences on record, had passed the award, dated10.6.2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, setting aside the order ofdismissal, dated 20.9.1996, and had directed the petitionerCorporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages,with continuity of service and other benefits, by awarding thelesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, withcumulative effect. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 10.6.2002, made inI.D.No.811 of 1998, the petitioner has preferred the present writpetition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the firstrespondent.7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the award of the labour Court, dated 10.6.2002, madein I.D.No.811 of 1998, is contrary to law, weight of evidence andprobabilities of the case. It was further submitted that the secondrespondent labour Court had failed to note that the firstrespondent was absent from duty, without prior permission andwithout leave having been sanctioned by the petitioner Corporation.The first respondent had absented himself from duty from 24.9.1994to 2.9.1995. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation had dismissedthe first respondent from service from 20.9.1996. The petitionerCorporation had issued a charge memo, dated 2.9.1995, and anenquiry had been conducted. The first respondent had participatedin the enquiry and he was given sufficient opportunity to defendhimself. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer hadsubmitted his enquiry report finding that the charges levelledagainst the first respondent had been proved. Based on the findingsof the enquiry report, a second show cause notice, dated 6.11.1995,had been issued to the first respondent. The explanation submittedby the first respondent was not satisfactory. Therefore, he wasdismissed from service, on 20.9.1996. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadfurther submitted that the second respondent labour Court, had alsofailed to note that the punishment of dismissal from service wasimposed on the first respondent on the basis of the previousmisconduct committed by the first respondent. Therefore, from therecords available, it is also clear that the enquiry was conductedin a fair and proper manner, following the principles of naturaljustice. Therefore, there is no reason for the second respondentlabour Court to set aside the order of dismissal passed against thefirst respondent and to reduce the punishment of stoppage ofincrement for one year, with cumulative effect, imposed on thefirst respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadfurther submitted that the conduct of the first respondent inabsenting himself from duty, has caused serious dislocation in theoperation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. Since thefirst respondent had committed a grave misconduct attracting themajor punishment of dismissal from service, it is erroneous on thepart of the second respondent labour Court to invoke itsdiscretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, to reduce the punishment to that of stoppage ofincrement for one year, with cumulative effect.10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner and on a perusal of the recordsavailable, this Court is of the considered view that the petitionerCorporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interferewith the award of the labour Court, dated 10.6.2002, made inI.D.No.811 of 1998. 11. It is seen that the second respondent labour Court hadgiven sufficient reasons for reducing the punishment imposed on thefirst respondent to that of stoppage of increment for one year,with cumulative effect. The labour Court had found that thepunishment of dismissal from service imposed on the firstrespondent workman was disproportionate to the misconduct committedby him. It was also found that the enquiry officer had notconsidered the medical certificate produced by the first respondentworkman. Proper reasons have been given by the second respondentlabour Court to come to its conclusions for invoking Section 11-Aof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to reduce the punishment ofdismissal from service imposed on the first respondent to that ofstoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. In suchcircumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with theaward of the labour Court, dated 10.6.2002, made in I.D.No.811 of1998. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.lan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem1 cc to Mr.M. Ravibharathi, Advocate, SR. 69659 W.P.No.3845 of 2003 CK (CO)kk 18/12