Madras High Court
The Management vs G.Muthukrishnan on 20 July, 2021
W.A.No.219 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.219 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.2339 of 2019
The Management,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
(Formerly Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd)
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. .. Appellant
Vs
1.G.Muthukrishnan
2.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 20.08.2018 made in W.P.No.14428 of 2018.
For Appellant : Ms.Pooja Damodaran
for Mr.K.Moorthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi for R1
R2 - Court
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation
against the order of the learned Single Judge, who while agreeing with
the award of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal,
was pleased to modify it by directing the payment of 75% of
backwages from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
retirement.
2. The first respondent herein was an employee, who suffered
various punishments for his misconduct on 37 occasions. On two
occasions, he was punished for assaulting the co-workers, obviously
under the influence of alcohol. Charges have been framed against him
on the ground that in an inebriated state, he assaulted the time
keeper and tore the time chart. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted,
his service was terminated taking into consideration his past conduct.
3. The claim petition was filed by the first respondent in the year
2012, challenging the action taken in the year 2001. The Labour Court
found that the first respondent was not on duty though the occurrence
took place within the precincts of the work place and the misconduct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
regarding the tearing of the time chart has not been proved. As the
misconduct is only with respect to hitting the chair on the floor, he is
entitled for reinstatement with backwages of 75%.
4. The learned Single Judge, as aforesaid, modified the said
award by directing the payment of backwages from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of retirement. Challenging the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the Labour court has totally misconstrued the scope and ambit of
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Having found the
misconduct, at least in part, reinstatement with 75% backwages ought
not to have been granted. Learned Single Judge fell into error with the
Labour Court in this regard. The past conduct of the first respondent
has not been taken note of. Therefore, the award passed requires
interference.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that insofar as the charge regarding tearing of time chart has not been
proved, the Labour Court can re-appreciate the evidence. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
undertaking the said exercise, the second limb of Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act which allows the Labour court to go into the
proportionality has been exercised. Therefore, no interference is
required especially when the charge regarding the inebriated state of
the first respondent has not been proved.
7. Suffice it to say that both the Labour Court and the learned
Single Judge have not considered the scope and ambit of Section 11A
of the Industrial Disputes Act in the correct perspective. The Labour
Court is not expected to act like an appellate Court though re-
appreciation of the evidence is permissible. Be that as it may, having
found that the first respondent was guilty of throwing the chair and in
the absence of any perversity or mala fide available on record which
can be attributed against the appellant coupled with the past conducts
ended in punishment, at least on 37 occasions, the Labour Court has
certainly erred in passing such an award. One has to see that what is
required is preponderance of probability. With due respect to the
learned Single Judge, the same mistake to a lesser extent has been
committed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
8. It has been informed that the first respondent has attained
the age of superannuation. Therefore, at this point of time, we do not
wish to pass an order denying his right in full particularly when the
Labour Court found that at least one charge has not been proved with
respect to the tearing of the time chart.
9. In such view of the matter, while we are not willing to grant
any backwages as awarded by the Labour Court and the learned Single
Judge but the first respondent is entitled for all the benefits that might
arise by granting continuity of service. Therefore, the award passed by
the Labour Court and the order passed by the learned Single Judge
stand modified to the effect that from the date of dismissal till the date
of superannuation, the first respondent is entitled for all the benefits
except the back wages. The amount will have to be calculated and
accordingly paid to the first respondent within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The pension
scheme if any is to be extended to the first respondent, if he is
otherwise eligible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
10. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
20.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai - 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.219 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.219 of 2019
20.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
