Madras High Court
The Management Of Tamilnadu vs The Presiding Officer on 22 July, 2021
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Management of Tamilnadu,
State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram Division III) Ltd.,
(Formerly Pattukkottai Alagiri
Transport Corporation Ltd.),
Rangapuram Vellore-9,
rep. by its General Manager ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
2.P.Pandian ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order passed in W.P. No.28038 of 2008 dated 02.04.2012 by the
Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru.
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
Standing Counsel for
Transport Corporation
For Respondents : R1 – Court
Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been brought by the Management of Tamil
Nadu, State Transport Corporation to interfere with the impugned
order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge,
dismissing the Writ Petition No.28038 of 2008 and confirming the
Industrial Dispute No.655 of 2001 dated 31.01.2008 passed by the I
Additional Labour Court, Chennai, giving direction to the appellant to
re-instate the second respondent in service with back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits from the date of
filing the I.D.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
when the second respondent was served as Driver in the appellant
Corporation, he was not allotted work on 17.08.1994. Therefore, he
went to the rest room to take rest. While so, when he was having
conversation with his co-worker, the mirror fell down and broke into
pieces, however, the second respondent has replaced the same by
using his own money. On 07.09.1994, the second respondent was
issued with a charge memo alleging that on 17.08.1994 at 17.35
hours, when the second respondent was in drunken mood passed urine
in the rest room, he used to pick up an un-necessary quarrel with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
Conductor one Rajendran in the depot. After issuance of the said
charges, he gave his explanation. Being not satisfied with the
explanation offered by the second respondent, on the basis of the
findings given by the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent was
terminated from service. Aggrieved thereby, when an Appeal was filed
by the second respondent, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the
second respondent approached the Conciliation Officer by raising a
dispute, which also ended in failure report. Hence, the second
respondent filed the above Industrial Dispute No.655 of 2001 before
the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai to set aside the termination
order and to re-instate him in service with back wages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits alleging that domestic enquiry
conducted against him was not fair and proper. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellant further submitted that when there were
two important witnesses, namely, Security Guard and one Rajendran,
who was assaulted by the second respondent and the said evidences
were believed by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court brushing aside
the veracity of the evidences given by them, set aside the order of
removal from service and directed the appellant to re-instate him in
service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant
benefits from the date of filing the I.D. Aggrieved thereby, the matter
was brought before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.28038 of 2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
and the infirmity committed by the Labour Court was demonstrated
with sufficient evidence that the findings given by the Labour Court
was wrong.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted
that when the Security Guard was examined as appellant Management
witness along with the Conductor Rajendran, who was assaulted by the
delinquent employee, these evidences cannot be brushed aside.
However, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the
Conductor Rajendran appears to be an interesting witness for the
simple reason that after advancing loan to the second respondent,
finding difficulty to get back the money from him, he has foisted the
false case. In spite of the evidences adduced by Security Guard and
Rajendran, who deposed that the second respondent quarrelled with
him and beaten him, the Labour Court, accepting the explanation
offered by the second respondent that he himself appeared before the
Enquiry Officer and stated that when he was going closely to the wall,
the mirror fell down and he has replaced the same by using his own
money, has come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient
evidence to nail the second respondent. Therefore, the order passed
by the learned Single Judge needs interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
4.As the learned Single Judge, after analysing the findings and
conclusions reached by the Labour Court, has reached conclusion that
the Enquiry Officer has not reached reasonable conclusion, we are not
able to find any way to depart from the conclusion reached by the
learned Single Judge. Secondly, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the second respondent, on reaching the age
of superannuation, was allowed to retire from service, after he was
re-instated in service, without prejudice to the writ appeals. Since the
second respondent was retired from service during June 2016 and was
paid with provisional pension, finding no infirmity in the impugned
order, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the writ
appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently connected M.P. is
closed. No costs.
5.Needless to mention that the appellant shall pay the regular
pension to the second respondent from the date on which he was
entitled to.
(T.R.J.) (V.S.G.J.)
22.07.2021
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vga
To
The Presiding Officer,
I Additional Labour Court,
Chennai.
W.A.No.1537 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
