Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 14 July, 2021
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.17201 of 2018 and
WMP.No.20406 of 2018
The Management,
Sathiyamangalam Sarvodiya Sangam,
9/467 Main Road, Sathiyamangalam,
Erode- 638 401. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2. R.Murugan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.221 of 2010 on the file
of Labour Court, Salem, the first respondent herein and quash the impugned award
dated 08.02.2018 (published on 07.05.2018) read with preliminary award dated
27.02.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan (R2)
*****
ORDER
The Petitioner / Management has come forward with this Writ Petition,
challenging the Award in I.D.No.221 of 2010 on the file of Labour Court, Salem, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
first respondent herein and quash the impugned award dated 08.02.2018 (published on
07.05.2018) read with preliminary order dated 27.02.2014.
2.The facts in nutshell as stated by the Management are as follows:
(i) The Workman / 2nd respondent herein joined the services of the Management
as Assistant on 01.04.1985. During the course of employment with the Management, the
Workman indulged in a serious misconduct of misappropriation, which had resulted in
issuance of a Charge Memo dated 05.08.2002 and not satisfied with the explanation
submitted by the 2nd respondent, an enquiry was ordered to probe into the charges
levelled against the 2nd respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that
the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. Therefore, the 2 nd
respondent issued a show cause notice to him, along with the report of the Enquiry
Officer and despite receipt of the show cause notice, he had not chosen to give any reply
and thereafter, the Workman was dismissed from service on 11.10.2006.
(ii) Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed a writ petition before this
Court in W.P.No.45107 of 2002 and the same was disposed of by this Court on
10.02.2010, giving liberty to the second respondent to raise an industrial dispute which
was taken on file of the first respondent in I.D.No.221 of 2010. The first
respondent/Labour Court after receiving the materials filed by the parties passed a
preliminary order holding that the domestic enquiry was not in accordance with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
principles of Natural Justice. Since, the Management sought permission to lead
evidence, the Labour Court permitted the Management to adduce evidence.
(iii) The Labour Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence,
passed a final award on 08.02.2018, and granted the relief of reinstatement to the
second respondent/workman. Challenging the same, the present Writ petition has been
filed.
2. Learned counsel for the Workman contended that the dismissal order passed
by the Management is illegal, as the Workman was not allowed to defend his case
effectively and there was a violation of principles of natural justice. He further
contended that the Workman was victimized for the illegal act committed by one
Sennanjappa, Branch In-charge and it was the Workman, who had brought out the act of
misappropriation by other staff members and in order to take vengeance upon him, he
was dismissed from service without conducting a fair enquiry.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
4. The Labour Court in the preliminary order held that domestic enquiry was not
fair and proper. The Management was prevented from using the very same exhibits that
form part of the charges. Once the domestic enquiry has been held to be not fair and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
proper, it is open to the Employer to adduce fresh evidence in the light of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company v.
Management, reported in 1973 (1) LLJ 78, provided there is a plea taken by the
Management in the counter affidavit that they must be given an opportunity to let in
evidence as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar
Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., and others, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 371.
Once the domestic enquiry is set aside, the finding of the Enquiry Officer can be marked
as Exhibit, as it would form part of the material on record. But, however, it can be
looked into only for the purpose of contradiction and it cannot be construed as a gospel
truth. Though the Management is entitled to lead evidence afresh and establish the
charges, based on the documentary and verbal evidence, the same has not been accepted
by the Labour Court as found in Paragraph 8 of the Award.
5. Hence, this Court, while interfering with the award as perverse, remands the
matter to the Labour Court to decide the case afresh, after providing an opportunity to
the Management to lead fresh/additional evidence, mark Exhibits that has been rejected
in Paragraph 8 of the award, which is subject matter of the Writ Petition and decide the
issue, uninfluenced by the earlier award of the Labour Court which is subject matter of
the Writ Petition. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter, within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without adjourning this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
matter beyond seven working days at any point of time.
6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.07.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
arr
Note: Registry is directed to return the original records, if the records
are received.
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
arr
W.P.No.17201 of 2018
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
