Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.221 of 2019For Petitioner: Mr.M.AswinFor Respondent : Mr.S.AyyathuraiORDERThe Transport-Corporation has filed the above writ petition challenging the award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.229 of 2005. The industrial dispute was raised by the Union which has become defunct and in its place, the employee, whose grievance the Union has espoused, has been brought on record.2. The facts are briefly set out herein below :a)The second respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation. On 09.06.1997, the second respondent herein, had driven the bus allotted to him, on a entire trip without a conductor being on board, which was a serious misconduct. Therefore, a charge memo dated 21.07.1997 was issued by the petitioner-Corporation to the respondent-workman. On 31.07.1997, the respondent-workman had also submitted his reply. The petitioner-Corporation decided to 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019initiate domestic enquiry against the respondent-workman and issued a notice of enquiry dated 04.12.1997, intimating the date of enquiry on 20.12.1997. The respondent-workman appeared for the enquiry along with an outsider. Since the Rules of the Corporation did not permit the participation of an outsider in the domestic enquiry, the respondent-workman was required to seek the assistance of a co-worker. Thereafter, the workman did not participate in the enquiry and the same was adjourned to 13.12.1998. Notice of fresh enquiry dated 20.01.1998 was served on the workman on 02.02.1998, but he did not turn up for enquiry and an exparte enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the respondent-workman is guilty of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry findings, an order dated 06.03.1998 was passed, in and by which, the workman's increment for one year with cumulative effect was stopped. b)Thereafter, in the year 1999, the respondent-workman without any prior intimation had absented himself for the duty on 25.02.1999, 26.02.1999, 03.03.1999 and 06.03.1999. Hence, 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019his wages for these days were not paid to him. He again remained absent for six days during April 1999, i.e., on 04.04.1999 to 07.04.1999, 15.04.1999 and 16.04.1999, without any prior intimation or prior permission. Therefore, his salary for the said six days were also not paid to him.c)Yet another misconduct alleged by the petitioner-Corporation as against the respondent-workman is that, on 29.01.2000, the vehicle that was being driven by him had a break down. On examining the vehicle, it was found that the break down was only on account that the gear of the vehicle was not properly operated as the same has been changed without applying the clutches properly. This had caused a monetary loss to the petitioner-Corporation. On 31.01.2000, a charge memo was issued for these lapses, for which, an explanation was given by the respondent-workman on 29.03.2000. Since the explanation was found unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry notice dated 14.04.2000 was issued to the respondent-workman but he refused to participate in the enquiry scheduled on 22.04.2000. Therefore, the enquiry was 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019conducted exparte and the workman was found guilty of the charges. Based on the enquiry report, the workman was imposed with a punishment of postponwement of his increment for two years without cumulative effect, by order dated 22.05.2000.d)Apart from the above, the major allegation against the respondent-workman is that in the year 1998, he remained absent for duty on 22.08.1998 and 23.08.1998 without prior permission. However, he came to the workshop on 23.08.1998 and signed in the register as if he had attended office on 22.08.1998 by inserting his name, without obtaining permission from foreman. On coming to know about this, the Management issued a charge memo on 17.09.1998, for which, the respondent-workman had submitted his explanation on 25.09.1998. Since his explanation was not found satisfactory, the Management temporarily suspended him from service by order dated 21.10.1998. However to provide an opportunity to the workman, domestic enquiry was ordered to be held on 26.02.1999, for which, enquiry notice dated 06.02.1999 was 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019served on him on 21.02.1999, despite which, he did not participate in the enquiry. Hence, the enquiry was conducted exparte and by the findings of the enquiry officer, the charges against him were proved. This resulted in issuing a second show cause notice dated 14.04.1999, calling upon the workman to explain as to why his basic pay should not be reduced by three stages. His explanation dated 10.05.1999 to the said show cause notice was not found satisfactory. The petitioner-Management, with a view to take a lenient action against the workman, had reduced his basic pay by one stage and his suspension period from 22.10.1998 to 28.11.1998 was treated as eligible leave. e)The respondent-workman, without even attempting to correct himself, had continued to absent himself from duty from 15.10.1998 to 21.10.1998, which necessitated the respondent-Management to issue charge memo, followed by domestic enquiry scheduled on 06.03.1999 etc., On this occasion, the workman required the Union leader to represent him in the enquiry. This was refused by the petitioner-Management, 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019however, he had been permitted to take the assistance of his co-worker. This was not in agreement to the respondent-workman, who therefore did not participate in the enquiry. Hence the enquiry was conducted exparte and a second show cause notice dated 23.03.1999 was issued to him.f)Even the charge memo dated 27.10.1998 issued by the petitioner-Corporation for his absence on 15.10.1998 to 21.10.1998 was pending, the petitioner had again absented himself without any prior intimation from 30.11.1998 to 22.12.1998 and the enquiry was conduted as per the Rules, which resulted in the petitioner-Management to take a severe action against the workman and accordingly by order dated 05.06.1999, he was imposed with a punishment, whereby the Management declined to grant increment for one year with cumulative effect.g)The respondent-workman through his Union, had raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.229 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Salem, seeking reversal of all his punishments and to pay him the compensation for the absented days.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019h)The Labour Court by order dated 05.12.2007 had allowed the claim of the respondent-Union by ordering reversal of the punishments and to pay wages for the absented ways. The award of the Labour Court reads as follows : @30/ ,Wjpahf. ,e;j bjhHpw; jhth mDkjpj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/1) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd;. Xl;Ldhpd; Mz;L Cjpa cah;tpid eph;thfk; Xuhz;L fhyj;jpw;F jpuz;l gaDld; epWj;jp itj;jij uj;J bra;J. nkw;go gzg;gyid 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa Kjy; vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/2) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd;. Xl;Ldh; 25/02/99. 26/02/99 3/3/99 kw;Wk; 6/3/99 Mfpa ,e;j ehd;F ehl;fs; rk;gsj;jpid 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa ,uz;lhtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 20193) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd; vd;w Xl;Ldhplk; 4/4/99 Kjy; 7/4/99 tiu kw;Wk; 15/4/99 kw;Wk; 16/4/99 tiu tpLg;g[ mspf;fhky; rk;gsk; gpoj;jk; bra;jJ rl;ltpnuhjk; vd;W jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;L. me;j eltof;if uj;J bra;ag;gl;L nkw;go gzg;gyid 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa K:d;whtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/4) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd; vd;w Xl;LeUf;F 22/05/2000 njjpa cj;jutpy; mspf;fg;gl;l jz;lidia uj;J bra;J. mjd; tpisthf epWj;jp itf;fg;gl;l bra;ag;gl;l tUlhe;jpu Cjpa cah;t[ bjhiffis 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa ehd;fhtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/5) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd; vd;w Xl;LdUf;F eph;thfk; jdJ 1/6/99 njjpa cj;jutpy; mog;gil rk;gsj;jpy; xU epiy Fiwj;Jk;. jw;fhypfg; gzpePf;ff; fhyj;jpid tpLg;ghf ghtpj;J tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jz;lidfis uj;J bra;J mtuJ rk;gsj;jpy; Fiwj;J gpoj;jj; bjhiffis 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa Ie;jhtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/6) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd;; vd;w Xl;LdUf;F eph;thfk; jdJ 1/6/99 njjpa cj;jutpy; mog;gil rk;gsj;jpy; xU epiy Fiwj;Jk;. cj;jutpl;lij uj;J bra;J gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gl;l rk;gsj; bjhifapid 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa MwhtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/7) jpU/$p/byl;Rkzd; vd;w Xl;Ldhpd; Mz;L Cjpa cah;tpid eph;thfk; 5/6/99 njjpa cj;jutpd; K:yk; xU tUl fhyk; jpuz;l gaDld; epWj;jp itj;J jz;lid mspj;Js;sij uj;J bra;J gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gl;l bjhifia 10 rjtPjk; tl;oa[ld; ,d;W Kjy; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 12 rjtPjk; tl;o tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L. kDjhuhpd; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;ifapy; epahaKs;sJ vd;W muR mDg;gpa VHhtJ vGtpdhtpw;F jPh;t[ fhzg;gLfpwJ/ kDjhuUf;F. vjph;kDjhuh; 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019bryt[j; bjhifahf U:/10.000-? tH';f ntz;Lbkd;W cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/Challenging the same, the petitioner-Management is before this Court.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management would submit that before imposing the punishments on the respondent-workman, the Management had given sufficient opportunity to the workman. However, the workman did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and added to that, he had not taken any steps to rectify his mistakes.4. The learned counsel would further submit that the only two grounds that has been raised by the petitioner is that the punishment has been given effect to and therefore, the same cannot be questioned, and secondly, the dispute raised before the Labour Court was barred by limitation. 5. In response to the above, Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would submit that the petitioner-Management cannot now question the reference, as the Management had 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019not taken any steps whatsoever to challenge the Government reference initially. The Management have not even taken steps to consider the preliminary issue. Further there are no documents marked on the side of the petitioner-Corporation to substantiate their allegations levelled against the respondent-workman. 6. Heard Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.7. As rightly pointed out by Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, that the petitioner-Management had not challenged the reference before the Labour Court, either by contending that the order making the reference is bad or the claim itself is barred by limitation. These are the arguments that has been advanced by the petitioner-Corporation only before this Court. This does not even find a place in the grounds of the present writ petition. This Court is of the considered opinion that that the Labour Court, Salem has considered in detail each and every reference/claims and has passed its orders. Therefore, 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.09.06.2025 Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nods13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.221 of 2019P.T. ASHA, J, dsW.P.No.221 of 201909.06.202514/14