Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 16 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:16.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited
Represented by Managing Director
Dindigul Region,
Bye-Pass Road,
Collectorate P.O.,
Dindigul-624 004. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Thiruchirapally
(Dindigul Camp)
2.The General Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu
Tholilalar Sangam,(CITC)
V.P.Sinthan Memorial,
51, Kilaku Arockiamatha Theru,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of
the 1st respondent pertaining to its proceedings in I.D.No.39 of 2009
dated 24.04.2010 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For R2 : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For R1(Court)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first
respondent, dated 24.04.2010 passed in I.D.No.39 of 2009.
2.The case of the petitioner/ Management is that the workman,
viz., Thiru.Kulanthairaj was appointed as a Driver, on 06.12.1980 in the
petitioner/Management. While the workman was discharging his duty as
a Driver for the trip from Chennai to Dindigul, the bus bearing
Registration No.TN57-H-0245 met with an accident near
Veppur(Ulundur Pet.). The injured passengers have filed MCOP Nos.396
and 397 of 1994. In order to substantiate the case, the workman was
directed to attend the Court at Virudhachalam for enquiry on 10.08.2000,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
by granting duty permission and travelling allowance. However, the
petitioner/Management, on a perusal of the said judgment, came to know
that the workman had not attended the Court on 10.08.2000, which
resulted in awarding of higher amount. The said act of the workman is
against Sec.16(9), 16(13, 16(5), 16(40), 16(5), 16(20) and 16(13) of the
Standing Orders of the Corporation. For the above said misconduct, on
06.02.2001, a charge memo was issued against the workman and he gave
his explanation, on 19.03.2001. Since the said explanation was not
satisfactory, in order to provide him an opportunity, a domestic enquiry
was conducted, on 07.08.2001. After completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer gave his findings on 16.10.2001 stating that the charges
are proved.
3.Further, the petitioner has received the second show cause
notice, on 09.01.2002 and seeking time for submitting his reply and time
was also granted to him. In the mean time, the workman, has not
produced any evidence to modify the order. Therefore, the respondent
imposed the punishment of increment cut for a period of three years with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
cumulative effect. Thereafter, by order, dated 12.07.2002, the said order
was modified as two years increment cut with cumulative effect. As
against the said order, the workman has raised an industrial dispute,
before the first respondent. After considering the evidence, the first
respondent has allowed the said industrial dispute, by setting aside the
award passed by the petitioner/Management.
4.On the side of the second respondent/Sangam, no witness was
examined and one document Ex.P.1 was marked and on behalf of the
petitioner Management, no witness was examined and the documents
Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13 were marked.
5.After analysing both oral and documentary evidence, the Labour
Court has passed an award in favour of the workman by setting aside the
order of punishment. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition
is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management
submitted that while the workman viz., Kulanthairaj was working as a
Driver, he met with an accident, wherein, the injured passengers have
filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Therefore, the workman was instructed to appear before the Tribunal to
prove the negligence on the part of the claimant therein. However, the
workman, without attending the Court, informed the Corporation counsel
to give a letter to the petitioner/Management as if he attended the Court
and he was also examined. Thereafter, a perusal of the award of the
Labour Court, the petitioner/Management came to know that the
workman did not attend the Court, due to which, higher compensation
was awarded to the claimants therein, for which, a charge memo was
issued and after an elaborate discussion and also the report of the enquiry
officer, the authority imposed the punishment, which cannot be interfered
by the Labour Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that the delinquent is not a party in the MCOP and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
without issuing summons, the delinquent cannot appear before the
MCOP. Further, there is no record available either before the Enquiry
Officer or before the Tribunal to prove that the summons was issued to
the delinquent. In the absence of any summons or letter to the delinquent
for his appearance before the MCOP Court, framing of charges as against
the workman Kulanthairaj, is unsustainable in law. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the present writ petition.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
9.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. This Court, on
perusal of Exs.R1 to 13 reveals that either summons or letter issued to
the delinquent for his appearance before the MCOP was not marked. In
the absence of any letter or summons to the delinquent for his appearance
before the MCOP, the issuance of charge memo and imposing the
punishment is not proper in the considered opinion of this Court. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
16.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Thiruchirapally
(Dindigul Camp)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Ns
W.P.(MD)No.6680 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
