Madras High Court
The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 April, 2021
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Kumbakonam Division - I) Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam - 612 001. ..Appellant
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
2.P.Balasubramanian ..Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.9281 of 2004.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : R1 - Court
No appearance for R2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the dismissal of the writ petition filed challenging the award dated
14.08.2003 in I.D.No.85 of 1997 by the Labour Court, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
2. The appellant issue a charge memo to the second
respondent, who was employed as Conductor on the premise that
though he collected Rs.0.80 each from two passengers, he had
issued only two green colour blank papers instead of tickets. On
inspection, the misconduct of the second respondent was found and
statement has been recorded form the passengers as well as from
one Subramaniyan, being the Conductor of the appellant
Corporation, who incidentally travelled in the same bus as a
passenger.
3. The Labour Court, Cuddalore, passed the award in
favour of the second respondent and found that the charges are not
proved. An assessment of facts was made. Accordingly, the order of
dismissal was set aside with the consequential order of
reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits
along with 50% of back wages.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
after noting the fact that the second respondent did issue two
tickets to the passengers and entries were made in the invoice. The
witness examined on behalf of the appellant, by name,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
Subramaniyan said to have travelled in the same bus as a
passenger has not been examined either before the enquiry officer
or before the Labour Court. The said Subramaniyan was the
conductor of the appellant. The driver of the bus and the Assistant
Manager, who gave the complaint were also not examined.
Accordingly, the writ petition filed was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to
reiterate the stand taken both before the Labour Court and before
the learned Single Judge.
6. We do not find any merit in this appeal as we are
concerned with the decision making process alone. Resultantly,
there is no question of re-appreciation especially the Labour Court
and the learned Single Judge have given clear and categorical
finding on facts. Though it is submitted that the previous
misconduct ought to have been taken into consideration, inasmuch
as the charges by themselves are not having been proved, the
award of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge
does not warrant interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
7. The writ appeal stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
C.M.P.No.26588 of 2019 is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
21.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
ssm
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
(ssm)
W.A.No.4264 of 2019
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
