Madras High Court
Bharathidasan vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 3 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2335 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.14787 of 2021
Bharathidasan ..Appellant
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
(Villupuram Region) Ltd.,
Villupuram,
Rep. By its Managing Director.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.07.2021 made in W.P.No.37242 of 2005.
For Appellant .. Mr.R.Muralidharan
For Respondents .. Mr.G.Saravana Kumar
for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made by the workman to the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 26 July 2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37242
of 2005, allowing the writ petition filed by the Management – State
Road Transport Corporation.
2. Heard the learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant (workman) has submitted
that, interference by learned Single Judge in the award passed by the
Labour Court was not justified, since the Labour Court had, on the
basis of the evidence placed on record arrived at the conclusion that,
discontinuance of service of the workman was illegal and relief was
granted. It is submitted that in the writ petition filed by the
Management, learned Single Judge set aside the award inter alia on
the ground that the workman had caused accidental death, he was
not regular employee and under the wrong premise that the
documents are available with the Management, the employee filed
the petition and obtained adverse finding against him. It is submitted
that the award of the Labour Court could not have been interfered
with on these grounds. It is submitted that the order of learned single
Judge be set aside and this appeal be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
/ Management (original writ petitioner), at the outset had submitted
that, the workman was terminated after due inquiry. When it was
asked, what is the date of termination order and the date of inquiry
report, if it is on record, it was sought to be canvassed that since the
workman had not completed 240 days, it was discharge simplicitor. It
is under these circumstances, the case of the workman needs to be
examined. Learned advocate for the first respondent / Management
has contended that the Labour Court had wrongly shifted the burden
on the Management and therefore that part is rightly interfered with
by learned Single Judge and no interference be made in this writ
appeal. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as
under:-
5.1. The discontinuance of service of the workman was the
subject-matter of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act in
I.D.No.103 of 2001 which was allowed vide award dated 28 February
2005.
5.2. We have considered the reasons recorded by the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, while allowing the said reference. We find that both sides had
placed on record material / evidence available with them. The
workman had discharged his obligation. The Management could have
disputed the said evidence of the workman, by producing appropriate
record. The case of the Management before Labour Court was that,
the said record is destroyed by them, may be as per Rules. Non-
production of evidence by the Management should not put the
concerned workman at the receiving end. The Labour Court, in this
factual background, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
workman had discharged his obligation and there was no legally
sustainable contest against it. On the basis of this fact and evidence,
the Labour Court passed an award granting relief to the workman. We
find that the Labour Court can not be said to have committed any
error, which would have called for any interference in the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. The error in the impugned order recorded by
learned Single Judge therefore needs to be corrected.
5.3. We also find that, learned Single Judge has, while setting
aside the award inter alia recorded his satisfaction as under:-
4. ..... For that purpose, he has filed a
petition to call for the documents from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employer and the employer has filed a counter
stating that those documents have been
destroyed in terms of the Rules, which has been
accepted by the labour Court and the petition for
production of the documents has been rejected.
Hence, when the employee wanted to shift the
burden on the employer and the employer has
discharged his obligation by stating that the
records are not at all available, which has also
been accepted by the labour Court, still drawing
adverse inference against the Management may
not be correct. ... He has also caused accident
by causing death. .... Under the wrong premise
that the documents available with the
Management, the employee filed a petition and
obtained adverse findings against him.”
5.4 If the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge are taken
into consideration and reconciled with the submissions of the learned
advocate for the first respondent / Management, it becomes
undisputed that the real cause to terminate the service of the
workman was some accident which was perceived to be misconduct
on his part. When this was the case, that could not have been done
without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Management can not
be permitted to blow hot and cold together when the discontinuance
of service was in fact termination for misconduct and at the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
time, according to the Management, the workman had not completed
240 days and he was discharged simplicitor. Interference in the writ
petition, on these findings recorded by learned Single Judge,
according to us, error apparent on face of record which calls for
interference. We set aside that part of the order. The resultant effect
thereof is that, no legally sustainable reason remains on record,
which may unsettle the award passed by the Labour Court. This
appeal therefore needs to be allowed by setting aside the order of
learned Single Judge.
6. We also note that the writ petition by the Management was
filed in the year 2005. During the pendency of the said petition, the
workman claimed that he be paid the wages under Section 17(B) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Single Judge had passed order to
that effect on 24 August 2006. The statutory entitlement of the
workman was challenged by the Management by filing W.A.No.935 of
2007. That appeal was dismissed on 21 February 2008 which was in
turn challenged before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.
16039 of 2008 which also came to be dismissed on 15 April 2011.
7. Though the litigant does have right to approach higher
forum, the fact remains that the Management has dragged the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workman right up to the Supreme Court even for his wages which he
was statutorily entitled to under Section 17 (B) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:-
8.1 This writ appeal is allowed.
8.2 The impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is
quashed and set aside.
8.3 The award passed by Labour Court is restored.
8.4 All consequential benefits shall be paid to the workman
within a period of four months.
8.5 No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
03.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
(Villupuram Region) Ltd.,
Villupuram.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2335 of 2021
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
