Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 22 July, 2021
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
The Management,
Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) Ltd.,
5, Anna Salai,
Post Box No.6,
Rasipuram - 637 408. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
2. Y.Selvaraj ... Respondents
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.467 of 2000, on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, the 1st
Respondent herein and to quash the Award dated 25.01.2005 passed therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
ORDER
Petitioner/Management has come up with this Writ Petition
challenging the Award dated 25.01.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Salem
in I.D.No.467 of 2000, in granting reinstatement to the 2nd
Respondent/employee without backwages, but with continuity of service.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
3. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court has held that, the charge
alleged against the 2nd Respondent/employee that, he scolded the Supervisor
with filthy language, is proved. However, the Labour Court interfered with
the punishment imposed on the employee, under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and awarded reinstatement with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits within three months from the date of
receipt of the order, but without backwages.
4. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management
contended that, once the charges are proved, the Labour Court ought not to
have interfered with the punishment, the same cannot be accepted, as it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
would amount to taking away the powers of the Tribunal and making Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, itself redundant.
5. At this juncture, it is worth referring to a judgment of the Gujarat
High Court in the case of R.M. Parmar vs Gujarat Electricity Board
reported in (1983) ILLJ 261 Guj, wherein, the powers of the Tribunal in
adjudication proceedings relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman,
have been discussed. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
“3. In accordance with these recommendations,
it is considered that the Tribunal's power in an
adjudication proceedings relating to discharge or
dismissal of a workman should not be limited and that
the Tribunal should have the power, in cases wherever
necessary, to set aside the order of discharge or
dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on
such terms and conditions, if any, as it think fit or give
such other relief to the workman including the award of
any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal
as the circumstances of the case may require. For this
purposes, a new section 11A is proposed to be inserted
in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
The matter regarding imposition of penalty on
employees (it was so realized by International Labour
Organization, an international body) could not be left
solely to the discretion of the management even if the
employee concerned is found to be guilty of the charge
levelled against him, presumably because of the
conditioned approach of the disciplinary authority with
this inbuilt and inherent pro-employer-anti-employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
bias. That is why in obeisance to the felt needs of the
time it was considered necessary to entrust this most
vital function to a neutral body. With the end in view
that he employees were not treated more harshly than
they deserved in the context of facts and circumstances
of the case, and that the employee could get the
protection of the Labour Court which could be trusted
to make a just and fair approach, the provision was
introduced by way of an amendment. It is a benevolent
power conferred on the Labour Court and has to be
exercised in the spirit in which the provision has been
enacted in order to further the intendment and purpose
of the legislation, Keeping aglow before the mental eye
some very important dimensions of the matter, viz. :
(1) There is widespread unemployment in our
country and it is difficult to secure a job to earn enough
to keep body and soul together unlike in developed
countries.
(2) The State does not provide social benefits
like unemployment allowance to enable a discharged
employee to sustain himself and his family to some
extent, as is being done in the developed countries.
(3) In imposing punishment on an erring
employee an enlightened approach informed with the
demands of the situation and the philosophy and spirit
of the times requires to be made. It cannot be a matter
of the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority depending
on his whim or caprice.
(4) Be it administration of criminal law or the
exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental
proceedings, punishment is not and cannot be the 'end'
in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot
be the motto.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
6. Merely because, abusive language is used, an employee cannot
be dismissed from service, and it cannot be said to be a serious one, more so,
in the light of R.M.Parmar's case cited supra. However, in the present case
on hand, the employee's past record is bad and he has been frequently
absenting himself and hence, putting him back in service, may not be correct.
7. It is represented that, during the pendency of the Writ Petition,
the 2nd Respondent/employee was drawing wages under Section 17-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which according to the
Petitioner/Management, works out to more than Rs.4 lakhs. Also, it is
represented by the Petitioner/Management that, the present monthly wages of
the employee works out to a sum of Rs.12,637/- and gratuity has been
calculated based on the amount payable to the employee from the date of
entry into service till the date of this order. It is seen that, the employee has
not filed any Writ Petition challenging the Award of the Labour Court that
has deprived him backwages.
8. In view of the factual averments available on record and taking
into account the past records of the 2nd Respondent/employee, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
Petitioner/Management is directed to pay the 2nd Respondent/employee a sum
of Rs.3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only)
including the Gratuity amount. The Award passed by the 1 st
Respondent/Labour is modified accordingly.
In fine, the Writ Petition is ordered is accordingly. No costs.
22.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.28855 of 2005
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
