Madras High Court

The Management Of vs M. Rajendran on 30 April, 2021

W.P.No.16228 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.04.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

W.P.No.16228 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.20272 of 2020

The Management of
Carolyn Estate,
Unit of Parry Agro Industries Limited,
Mangorange - Post,
Pandalur TK,
The Nilgiris.
Rep. by its Senior Manager (P & IR) ... Petitioner

Vs.

M. Rajendran ... Respondent

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records of the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.No.275 of 2012
and quash its preliminary award dated 27.08.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Asso.

For Respondent : M/s.V.Sivakumar
ORDER

1 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

Challenge to the Writ Petition is a Preliminary Award passed in

I.D.No.275 of 2012 dated 27.08.2020 on the file of the Additional Labour

Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is the Management. The respondent was

appointed as a probationary muster boy. On 11.02.2011, the Field Officer

of the petitioner Estate gave a complaint against the respondent. Based on

which, he was placed under suspension and a show cause notice was issued.

Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in which, the respondent was

found guilty and was terminated from service. Against which, the

respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court.

3. The Labour Court framed two issues as under:-

(1) whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the

Enquiry Officer is fair and proper, and

(2) whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is

arbitrary.

4. The Labour Court on Issue No.1, has held that the enquiry

2 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

conducted by the petitioner Management is not fair and proper. Thereafter,

proceeded to examine the charges on the basis of the evidence adduced

before the Enquiry Officer and held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is

perverse. Having found that the Enquiry Officer's finding is perverse, posted

the matter for adducing fresh evidence on the side of the petitioner

Management. Aggrieved over the said Preliminary Award, the Management

is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently

contend that the finding of the Labour Court is without appreciation of

materials in proper perspective. The Labour Court failed to see that the

enquiry proceedings were conducted in conformity with principles of natural

justice and ample opportunity was afforded to the respondent. The

respondent himself has not complained of any deficiency of improper

procedure during the conduct of enquiry. Only when the second show cause

notice was issued, he raised a plea that he was not given ample opportunity.

Therefore, the finding that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper, is

not correct as well as the finding of the Labour Court in respect of the

3 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

charges is absolutely illegal and the Labour Court without affording an

opportunity to let in fresh evidence, has erroneously arrived at a finding.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of M L Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank [ (2018) 18 SCC 21 ], he

contended that the Preliminary Award shall be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would

contend that the finding of the Labour Court is absolutely in order. The basis

of the punishment rest on Ex.M-1, the Complaint, given by the Field Officer,

whereas, the Field Officer was not examined as a witness to prove the charge

before the Enquiry Officer. Secondly, the admission letter allegedly given by

the respondent marked as Ex.W-A1 and Ex.M17 is a fabricated document

and the signature was also disputed in the enquiry proceedings held on

07.03.2011. However, the Enquiry Officer has held that the respondent did

not participate in the hearing dated 07.03.2011 and has held that the charges

were proved. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly adverted to the

evidence available before the Court and arrived at a right conclusion that the

enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and the consequential finding is

4 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

also legal and valid.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials placed before this Court.

8. The facts are admitted. The dispute revolves around as to

whether the Preliminary Award passed by the Labour Court as to the

conduct of enquiry proceedings as not fair and proper is correct or not? and

as to whether the finding of the Labour Court over the findings of the

Enquiry Officer with regard to the charges is correct or not?

9. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the Labour Court has

examined the exhibits marked before it and has found that there are

discrepancies in the charge memo and there is no indication as to permitting

him to have the assistance of an observer on the side of the workman. The

document which is called as a letter admitting the guilt marked as Ex.W-A1

on the side of the Worker and as Ex.M-17 marked on the side of the

Management are contradictory to Ex.M-14 and Ex.M-15, and appears to be

5 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

improbable in the circumstances where the respondent worker has

categorically denied the charges and was contesting the same by

participating in the enquiry and cross-examining the witnesses of the

Management. He has also submitted his objections with regard to Ex.M-17,

where as the Enquiry Officer omitted to consider the explanation submitted

by him, on the other hand observed that no explanation was submitted to the

second show cause notice, which amounts to non-consideration of relevant

materials in proper perspective and recording incorrect facts and it amounts

to violation of principles of natural justice and derailment fair and

transparent procedure laid down by law.

10. In his explanation to charges, the worker denied the

allegations. In reply to second show cause notice, he denied the findings of

the Enquiry Officer and alleged bias. While the matter stood thus, the

alleged admission letter despite active participation in enquiry and objections

to enquiry report spell out some discord in the scheme of things. More over,

the letter was written in the hand writing of the Enquiry Officer himself and

the signature is disputed and a comparison of signature in all these

6 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

documents reveal that there was difference.

11. From the materials, it is seen that the enquiry proceedings

were completed within two days without supplying the documents and

without affording ample opportunity to examine the witnesses. The Enquiry

Officer has also omitted to consider the explanation letter sent by the

respondent vide Ex.M-14 and Ex.M-15 and held the charges proved.

Therefore, the finding on these aspects that the enquiry proceedings were

conducted hurriedly without following principles of natural justice and

without considering the materials placed before them in proper perspective

and thereby, it is not fair and proper. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court

is upheld.

12. It is well settled procedure that when the Labour Court

arrives at a finding that the enquiry proceedings were not fair and proper, it

is incumbent upon it to provide opportunity to the Management to adduce

additional evidence and particularly when a request is made either orally or

by an application or through pleadings.

7 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

13. In the present case, the Petitioner / Management has

reserved its right in the counter statement dated 06.04.2013 to adduce

additional evidence, in the event, the Labour Court comes to the conclusion

that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. In such circumstances,

when the Labour Court arrived at a preliminary finding that the enquiry was

not conducted in fair and proper manner, it should have given an

opportunity to all the parties, more particularly the employer to adduce

additional evidence and thereafter, should have proceeded to consider the

validity of the charges and consequential order of either exonerating the

workman from the charges or imposing appropriate punishment. But, in the

instant case, the Labour Court has delved into the findings of the Enquiry

Officer like an appellate authority and has found that the findings are

perverse. Thereafter, afforded the opportunity to the Management to adduce

the additional evidence. In fact, the Labour Court should have afforded the

opportunity before dealing into the second issue as to whether the charges

were proved and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

8 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

14. Such a course adopted by the Labour Court is not

acceptable and alien to labour jurisprudence. The Labour Court has

elaborately examined the evidence of the witnesses before the Enquiry

Officer and the documents marked before it as an appellate Court and

arrived at a finding that the charge memo and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are perverse. Having determined that the charges are not proved,

there is no purpose in calling the Petitioner/ Management to adduce

additional evidence, which is nothing but an empty formality.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M L Singla's case (cited

supra) has categorically held that the Labour Court shall examine the

charges on merits only after affording an opportunity to the Management to

adduce evidence on merits to prove charges and after completion of the

same, it can decide the matter on merits. The relevant portions of the

judgment reads as under:-

“16. Depending upon the answer to this question, the Labour Court should have proceeded further to decide the next question.

9 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

20. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee, respondent No.1-Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the charges on merits.

21. The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to give such opportunity and then decide the question as to whether respondent No.1-Bank was able to prove the charges against the appellant on merits or not.

22. If the charges against the appellant were held proved, the next question to be examined was in relation to the proportionality of the punishment given to the appellant. If the charges against the appellant were held not proved, the appellant was entitled to claim reinstatement with back wages either full or partial depending upon the case made out by the parties on the issue of back wages.

23. The second error was that the Labour Court called upon the parties to lead evidence on all the issues including the

10 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

charge of misconduct in the first instance itself.

24. The third error committed by the Labour Court was that it proceeded to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges like an Appellate Court, appreciated the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the one adduced before it and then came to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. This the Labour Court could not do.

25. Assuming that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to direct the parties in the first instance itself to adduce evidence on merits in support of the charges yet, in our opinion, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first frame the preliminary issue on the question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and confined its discussion only for examining the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings.

26. Depending upon the finding on the preliminary issue on the legality of the enquiry proceedings, the Labour Court should have proceeded to decide the next questions. The Labour Court while deciding the preliminary issue could only rely upon the evidence, which was relevant for deciding the issue of legality of enquiry proceedings but not beyond it.

11 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16228 of 2020

27. In other words, the Labour Court failed to see that it would have assumed the jurisdiction to examine the charges on the merits only after the domestic enquiry had been held illegal and secondly, the employer had sought permission to adduce evidence on merits to prove the charges and on permission being granted he had led the evidence.”

16. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the Labour Court is under legal obligation to give an

opportunity to the employer to prove the charges alleged against the

employee, when it is asked for and thereafter to decide on the matter as to

whether the employer has proved the charges or not? In that view of the

matter, the finding in respect of second issue in the Preliminary Award

passed in I.D.No.275 of 2012 dated 27.08.2020 cannot be sustained and

accordingly, the finding in respect of Issue No.2 stands set aside.

17. Since the finding of the Labour Court with regard to

fairness of the enquiry is upheld, the Labour Court shall proceed from the

stage of providing opportunity to the Petitioner / Management to adduce

12 of 15