Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The Presiding Officer on 30 April, 2021
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.8123 of 2021
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam Division I Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam. .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
K.Nannaiyan(Deceased)
2.Radha
3.Minor.N.Srinivasan
4.Minor N.Surandran
5.Minor N.Sarmila
(Minors Respondent Nos.3 to 5
rep. by the mother and guardian
2nd respondent) .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 31.10.2019 made in W.P.No.9187 of 2004.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The present appeal has been filed against the order of the
learned single Judge, who while upholding the finding of the Labour
Court, with respect to the absence of misconduct, though there is
dereliction of duty, consequently modified the award passed, taking
note of the fact that the claimant was no more, even during the
proceedings before the Labour Court. The following are the findings of
the learned single Judge:
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that there
is no infirmity as such in respect of the findings as the
deceased employee had issued tickets to all the
passengers except one passenger. Even as per the invoice,
he issued tickets to 25 passengers, which was admitted by
the writ petitioner Corporation also. However, the
contention of the writ petitioner is that the ticket was not
issued to the 26th person alone. Under these
circumstances, the Labour Court arrived a conclusion that
there was a mistake on the part of the deceased employee
in preparing the invoice and the same cannot be
considered as a grave misconduct.
10. This being the facts and circumstances
considered by the Labour Court, this Court cannot draw
any inference with reference to the facts before the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
Court. Under these circumstances, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court.
However, the fact remains that the charges against the
deceased employee was proved and grave in nature. The
past records of the deceased employee was not considered
by the Labour Court. Earlier, the writ petitioner
Management imposed the punishment of suspension from
service for one month and the allegation on earlier
occasion was also that he received the ticket cost and not
issued the ticket to the passenger. Thus, the previous
misconduct committed by the deceased employee was also
similar to that of the charges framed in the present case.
The learned counsel for the writ petitioners also reiterated
that the deceased employee was having the habit of
collecting money and had not issued ticket on several
occasions and the previous conduct was not taken into
account by the Labour Court.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of an
opinion that the Award regarding the reinstatement,
cannot be granted as the employee passed away. As far as
the grant of back wages and other terminal and
pensionary benefits are concerned, this Court is of an
opinion that the legal heirs are entitled for the same and in
respect of back wages, this Court is inclined to grant 25%
of the back wages. The amount of back wages are reduced
on account of the fact that the previous history of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
deceased employee was not considered by the Labour
Court. This apart, the deceased employee had served for
about 10 years and therefore, awarding of 100% back
wages in respect of the misconduct is not proper. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that the Transport
Corporation are running in huge monetary loss.
12. Accordingly, the Award of the Labour Court
dated 16.06.2003 passed in I.D.No.347 of 1992 is
modified as follows:
(1) The respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to get 25%
of the back wages and also the statutory benefits as per
the service rules applicable to the deceased employee. The
statutory benefits and other benefits as applicable, is
directed to be disbursed within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
previous misconduct is a factor to be taken into consideration. The
charge against the deceased employee was serious.
3.Both the learned single Judge and the Labour Court found that
the deceased employee did not account for a sum of Rs.3.05 collected
from one of the passengers and did not issue the ticket. However, the
question of misconduct has not been proved as for the other
passengers, he did issue tickets after collecting money. There is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
finding either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority that
the aforesaid misconduct would amount to misappropriation. Taking
note of the above, the learned single Judge modified the award as
aforesaid.
4.In our considered view, the learned single Judge was perfectly
right in modifying the award. The appellant cannot say that even the
said Labour Court award requires to be interfered with, in the absence
of any material to substantiate that the deceased employee had
intention to defraud. The previous misconduct may be the factor for
imposing punishment. As the question of misappropriation as against
the dereliction of duty has not been proved, the order passed by the
learned single Judge does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the
writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
30.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
mmi
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
W.A.No.1280 of 2021
30.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
