High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 20176.S.Karthikani7.S.Deepakani8.S.Suruthika... Respondents (R3 to R8 are substituted vide Court order dated 25.11.2024in W.M.P.(MD) No.15025/2021)PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the award passed by the 1st respondent herein dated 02.09.2013 in I.D.No.53 of 2003 and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.S.C.Herald SinghFor Respondents:Mr.S.Arunachalam for R3 to R8R1 CourtR2 DiedO R D E RThis is an unfortunate case, where the petitioner Corporation without application of mind and without any sense of responsibility filed the present Writ ____________Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017Petition, when practically, the relief that was granted in favour of the respondent No.2 has become infructuous. 2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under:Respondent No.2 herein was subjected to disciplinary proceeding alleging certain misconduct on his part and accordingly, two charges were framed against him through charge memo dated 24.11.2000. The said charges read as under:“Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs;:1.18.07.2000 md;W ,uT NgUe;Jfs; thpirahf Bry; gpbj;Jf; nfhz;bUe;j NghJ> Ntz;Lnkd;Nw jpl;lk; Nghl;L b.vz;.32/vz;.0990 NgUe;ij ghJfhtyh; miw thapy; mUNf kj;jpay; epWj;jp kw;w thfdq;fs; nry;y Kbahj mstpw;F kwpj;J epWj;jpAk;> gzpahsh;fis J}z;bAk;;> eph;thfj;ijAk; mij rhh;e;jth;fisAk; epfo;r;rpapd; RUf;fj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW juf;Fiwthf Ngrp fpisapd; mikjpf;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;Js;sPh;.,J fof epiyahiz tpjp 23(1) kw;Wk; 23(9) 23(25) d;gb xOq;fPd nra;ifahFk;.____________Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 20172. Nkw;gb jpdk; ckJ nra;ifahy; fpisapy; guhkhpg;G gzp jhkjkhf fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;sPh;.,J fof epiyahiz tpjp 23(42) d;gb xOq;fPd nra;ifahFk;.Nkw;fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; rk;ge;jkhf ck;kPJ Vd; xOq;F eltbf;if vLf;ff;$lhJ vd;gjw;F ckJ tpsf;fk; VNjDk; ,Ug;gpd; mjid vOj;J %ykhf ,f;Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghiz fpilf;fg;ngw;w %d;W jpdq;fSf;Fs; mYtyfj;jpy; rkh;g;gpf;f Ntz;baJ. jtwpdhy; ckf;Fr; nrhy;ypf; nfhs;s fhuzk; VJk; ,y;iy vdf;fUjp> rk;gtj;jpd; juhjuj;jpd; Nghpy; jf;f Nky; eltbf;if vLf;fg;gLk;.” 3. It was thereafter, the petitioner Corporation, having conducted an enquiry into the matter, dismissed the respondent No.2 from service by an order dated 10.12.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.53 of 2003 on the file of the learned Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Labour Court in all framed four issues, which read as under:“1.kDjhuUf;F vjpuhf vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jhy; elj;jg;gl;l cs;Jiw tprhuiz ,aw;if ePjpf; Nfhl;ghl;bw;Fk;> rl;lj;jpw;Fk; KuzhdJ vd;gJ cz;ikah?____________Page 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 20172.kDjhuUf;F toq;fg;gl;l jz;liz mjpfgl;rkhdjh?3.kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; toq;fpa 10.12.2001e; Njjpa gzpePf;f cj;juT uj;J nra;ag;gl;L> kDjhuUf;F kPz;Lk; gzpj;njhlh;r;rpAlDk;> gpd;rk;gsj;JlDk; ,ju rYiffSlDk; gzpapy; mkh;j;j Ntz;Lnkd;W Nfl;fpw cj;juT gpwg;gpf;fj;jf;fjh?4. kDjhuUf;F fpilf;ff;$ba ghpfhuk; vd;d?4. Out of the abovesaid four issues, the first issue was answered in favour of the petitioner Corporation holding that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and after following the principles of natural justice and the finding of the Corporation holding that the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 were proved was also upheld. However, the learned Labour Court on issue No.2, came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service on respondent No.2 is shockingly disproportionate and accordingly, set aside the punishment. While deciding the issue Nos.3 and 4, the learned Labour Court thought it fit to deprive the respondent No.2 of backwages for the period commencing from 10.12.2001 till 02.09.2013 ie., all most for a ____________Page 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017period of 12 years including the attendant benefits and directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent No.2 without backwages and attendant benefits however with continuity of service by an award dated 02.09.2013. The said award was not given effect to by the petitioner Corporation till 20.12.2017 ie., the date on which the present Writ Petition has been filed. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016. Thus, by the date of filing of the present Writ Petition, respondent No.2 has already attained the age of superannuation, but the petitioner Corporation without paying any benefits to the respondent No.2 in spite of attaining the age of superannuation, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition and obtained an interim stay on 22.12.2017. The said interim stay is still operating. During pendency of the Writ Petition, respondent No.2 died on 19.04.2020 and consequently, the respondents 3 to 8 were substituted being the legal representatives of respondent No.2.5. In the light of the above factual background, the only issue that needs to be considered is whether the award passed by the learned Labour Court holding ____________Page 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on respondent No.2 is proportionate to the charges that are levelled against the respondent No.2 or not? 6. This Court has heard the submissions on either side and also perused the records.7. From the perusal of the charges, it is evident that the charges are trivial in nature, whereby respondent No.2 is stated to have blocked the passage and made an attempt to insist the other employees not to fill diesel in the vehicles and causing obstruction for free flow of vehicles for some time. It is not the case of the petitioner Corporation that the respondent No.2 was ever subjected to any disciplinary proceedings during his entire service. It is only on the solitary instance of stopping the vehicle and blocking the passage, the respondent No.2 was dismissed from service. The reason assigned by the learned Labour Court while concluding that punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate, is sound, reasonable and on proper analysation of the facts of the case. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned ____________Page 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017award passed by the learned Labour Court and there is nothing brought to the notice of this Court to defer with the reasoning assigned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award.8. Even otherwise for any reasonable person, the punishment of dismissal from service is definitely, shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct against the respondent No.2. In spite of the learned Labour Court finding fault with the petitioner Corporation in imposing punishment of dismissal from service for the nature of misconduct alleged against the respondent No.2, the petitioner Corporation, without application of mind and without evaluating the interest of the Corporation in an arbitrary manner and without any sense of responsibility, approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition and obtained interim stay on 22.12.2017. Though respondent No.2 has filed counter and vacate stay petition as early as on 26.02.2019, the petitioner Corporation has not chosen to apply its mind to the facts of the case and the said application is still pending for consideration before this Court for the past six years. As already noted above, during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the respondent No.2 workmen died on 19.04.2020. The petitioner Corporation which is a State ____________Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017owned Corporation having obtained stay of reinstatement has failed to comply with the requirement of payment of 17B wages since 02.09.2013 till 31.10.2016, the date on which respondent No.2 attained the age of superannuation. 9. From the over all facts of the case on hand, this Court is compelled to again say that the Officers who are responsible for filing the present Writ Petition, utterly failed to discharge their duties and protecting the interest of the petitioner Corporation and initiated the frivolous litigation by filing the present Writ Petition. Further, though the impugned award was passed as early as on 02.09.2013, the petitioner Corporation has not moved in the matter till 20.12.2017 i.e., for more than four years either by implementing the award or questioning the award, but it is only after the respondent No.2 attained the age of superannuation, the present Writ Petition has been filed. This aspect of the matter also shows the negligence on the part of the Officers, who are responsible either for not implementing the award or for questioning the award.10. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and equally is not inclined to keep quite, ____________Page 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017having noticed the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Officers, who are responsible for filing the present Writ Petition.11. Having concluded as above to dismiss the Writ Petition, this Court deems it necessary to issue appropriate directions to the petitioner Corporation in the interest of justice and is of the considered view that a duty cast on the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate directions. The respondent No.2 is deprived of his legal entitlement because of this frivolous litigation initiated by the petitioner Corporation by filing the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner Corporation is directed to fix the pay of the respondent No.2 as on 02.09.2013 by duly taking into consideration the entire service including the period between 10.12.2001 and 02.09.2013 and pay the wages from 02.09.2013 till 31.01.2016 and also pay the terminal benefits payable to the respondent No.2 to the respondent Nos.3 to 8 together with interest at the rate of 6% from 31.10.2016 till the date of actual payment as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________Page 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 201712. It is open for the Managing Director of the petitioner Corporation to take appropriate disciplinary action and recover the loss that is suffered by the respondent Corporation because of initiation of the frivolous litigation by filing the present Writ Petition from the officers who are responsible for filing the present Writ Petition. This Court further directs the Managing Director of the petitioner Corporation to frame appropriate guidelines or proper scrutiny mechanism to avoid initiation of frivolous litigation and to safeguard the interest of the petitioner Corporation.13. This Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17.02.2025Neutral Citation: Yes / NoIndex :Yes / Novsm____________Page 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.vsmToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli.W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 201717.02.2025____________Page 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017andW.M.P.(MD)Nos.20012 of 2017and4019 to 4021 of 2019MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,Today, this matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there is a typographical error in mentioning the date as 31.01.2016 instead of 31.10.2016 in paragraph no.11 of the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by this Court in the main Writ Petition.3. This Court having verified the same from the records and convinced that there is typographical error in mentioning the date as observed above.4. In the light of the above, the date “31.01.2016” mentioned in paragraph 11 of the order dated 17.02.2025 in the present Writ Petition shall stands ____________Page 13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017substituted with “31.10.2016”. Except the same, all other aspects shall remain intact. 5. Registry is directed to make necessary correction and issue a fresh order copy in the main writ petition at the earliest. 09.06.2025jd____________Page 14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.jdW.P.(MD)No.23879 of 2017andW.M.P.(MD)Nos.20012 of 2017and4019 to 4021 of 201909.06.2025____________Page 15 of 15