Madras High Court
Indian Overseas Bank Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour ... on 5 July, 2021
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.Nos.809 and 831 of 2013
W.A.No.809/2013 :
Indian Overseas Bank Limited,
Habeeb Towers,
756, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
rep. by General Manager ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour I
(Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishments Act),
Chennai-600 006.
2. R N Saxena ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 25.02.2013 made in W.P.No.21363 of 2001 by
a learned Single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
W.A.No.831/2013
R N Saxena ... Appellant
vs.
1. Indian Overseas Bank Limited,
Habeeb Towers,
756, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
rep. by General Manager
2. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour I
(Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishments Act),
Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr.Mr.K.M.Ramesh
st
For 1 Respondent : Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 25.02.2013 made in W.P.No.21363 of 2001 by
a learned Single Judge of this Court.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
Both these writ appeals have been filed against the order dated
25.02.2013 made in W.P.No.21363 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge
of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
2. When these matters were taken up, though several
grounds have been raised assailing the impugned order, learned
Counsel appearing for the Indian Overseas Bank mainly made his
attack on the grounds that the delinquent-employee was not given an
opportunity to cross-examine may not be a correct approach and that
even in the cross-examination, since the delinquent has clearly
admitted one of the major charges, the question of remanding the
matter back to the Enquiry Officer is uncalled for. The learned Counsel
further submitted that when once the delinquent has admitted in his
cross-examination the vital charge levelled against him, no purpose is
going to be served by re-doing the exercise by the Enquiry Officer.
3. It is, at this stage, learned Counsel for the delinquent-
employee-2nd respondent in W.A.No.809/2013 and appellant in
W.A.No.831/2013, while agreeing with the order of remand submitted
that the learned Single Judge ought not to have remanded the matter
back to the file of the Enquiry Officer, instead, the Appellate Authority
who has power to re-appreciate the whole evidence should have been
called upon to re-do the matter on remand. The reason being that
instead of remanding the matter to the appellate authority, if the
matter is gone back to the Enquiry Officer, it would prolong the matter
unnecessarily for quite sometime as the delinquent had already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
reached the age of superannuation. Secondly, the learned Counsel
further submitted that as the delinquent employee has already reached
the age of superannuation, the further exercise going to be undertaken
by the remanding authority may not be going to yield any positive
result to either of them. Therefore, some alternative punishment may
be considered by this Court so that the matter can be closed at the
earliest, he pleaded.
4. On one aspect, both the learned Counsels for the Indian
Overseas Bank and the delinquent-employee requested us that instead
of remanding the matter back to the Enquiry Officer, it can be
remanded back to the appellate authority to re-do the matter afresh.
Therefore, agreeing to the said joint request made by the learned
Counsel on either side, keeping in mind that the delinquent had
already reached the age of superannuation long time ago, we are
inclined to modify the order of remand only thereby directing the
appellate authority concerned to re-do the entire matter afresh
appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
5. With the above observation, directing the appellate
authority to re-do the entire exercise within a period of three months
time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the Writ Appeals
stand disposed of. No costs. Needless to mention that without
influenced by any of the observations made in the order of the Single
Judge of this Court made in Writ Petition No.21363/2001 dated
25.02.2013 and in these Writ Appeals, the Appellate Authority shall
proceed with the matter and dispose of the same on merits and in
accordance with law.
6. Registry is directed to return the original documents back to
the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I
(Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments
Act), Chennai, who has been now re-designated as Special Deputy
Commissioner of Labout-I, within a period of one week.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
05.07.2021
tsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
To
1. The General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank Limited,
Habeeb Towers,
756, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour I
(Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishments Act),
Chennai-600 006.
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.809 and 831/2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
