Madras High Court
The Management vs M. Chandrababu on 31 July, 2021
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2021
:CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Coimbatore Division – II Ltd.,
Chennimalai Road
Erode -1. .... Petitioner
-vs-
1. M. Chandrababu
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court.
Salem. ..... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the Award of the Second
Respondent passed in I.D.No.299 of 1999 dated 21.12.2005 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : M/S.S.Girija (R1)
Court (R2)
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Second
Respondent in I.D.No.299/1999 , dated 21.12.2005, by which the Labour Court directed
the Petitioner to reinstate the First Respondent/Employee into the service without
backwages and other attendant benefits and with continuity of service.
2. It is seen that, the 1st Respondent/employee joined the services of the
Petitioner/Transport Corporation on 04.06.1990 as a Conductor. He was dismissed
from service by an order dated 18.03.1991 with effect from 22.03.1991 for the charge
that, he had received bus fare of Rs.4.10 from a passenger and had issued ticket of the
denomination of Rs.1/- and also by considering the past record of the employee.
3. The Labour Court disbelieved the contentions of the Management and
observed that the Employee has not admitted the guilt during examination. For better
appreciation the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“....v/rh/1I FWf;Ftprhuiz bra;jnghJ elj;Jdh;
Fw;wj;ij xg;g[f;bfhz;ljhf vGj.p ifbaGj;J vJt[k; bra;J
bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;. rk;ge;jg;gl;l gazpaplnkh. elj;Jdhplnkh.
Xl;Ldhplnkh kDjhuh; bra;Js;s; Fw;wj;ij bghWj;J vt;tpjkhd
thf;FK:yKk; bgwtpy;iy vd;Wk;. ngUe;jpy; ,Ue;j rf gazpfsplKk;
jzpf;ifahsh;fs; kDjhuhpd; bray;ghL Fwpj;J vt;tpjkhd
tprhuiza[k; nkw;bfhs;spty;iy vd;Wk; v/rh/1 xg;gf[ ;bfhs;fpwhh;/”
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
4. The Labour Court held that there is no evidence much less legal evidence to
establish the charges and as the 1st Respondent/employee had raised the dispute after a
period of 8 years from the date of dismissal and considering the major punishment
imposed on the employee, the Labour Court interfered with the same and directed the
Petitioner/Transport Corporation to reinstate the employee into service with continuity
of service, however, without backwages and other attendant benefits.
5.It is represented by the learned counsel for R1 that during the pendency of this
Writ Petition, the 1st Respondent/employee was reinstated into service on 26.08.2006.
The said fact was not disclosed before the learned Single Judge and therefore the
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Management on 11/06/2012,
on the ground of delay and thereafter, the employee was dismissed from service.
Aggrieved by the same, the Workman filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1465 of 2013 and it
was disposed of on 19.08.2014, thereby remanding the matter to the learned Single
Judge for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted
hereunder:
"10. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos. 4199 and 4200
of 2008, dated 11.06.2012 respectively and allow these
writ appeals and remit the matter to the writ court for
fresh consideration of the same on merits and in
accordance with law, after hearing both parties as well
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
as considering their respective pleadings.
11. Since, we have set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos.4199 and 4200
of 2008, dated 11.06.2012, the termination order dated
28.07.2012 issued by the 1st respondent herein,
pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.Nos.4199 and 4200 of 2008, is also set
aside and consequently, the 1st respondent – Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, is directed to restore the
services of the Appellants, within a period of two weeks
from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Judgment,
subject to the final orders to be passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos. 4199 and 4200 of 2008. We
request, the learned Singled Judge to take up the above
said Writ Petitions and dispose of the same on merits
and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible."
6. Learned Standing counsel for the Management stated that, when the Writ
Petition was allowed, the employer was dismissed from service on 28.07.2012 and after
the Judgment of the Division Bench, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge
in the writ Appeal, the employee was reinstated into service and he had attained the age
of superannuation on 30.05.2015. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in
the interregnum period, the employee had not received any wages i.e., for
approximately three years.
7. Taking note of the fact that, the Award of the Labour Court is based on
finding of fact, this Court does not find any perversity in it. Though there is a delay in
raising the industrial dispute, apart from the fact that the employee was charged with
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
fine for 115 times, as the Employee has attained the age of Superannuation as of now,
the Petitioner-Corporation is directed to extend the terminal benefits, in the light of the
Award passed by the Labour Court, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
31.07.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
arr/shk
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court.
Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
arr/shk
W.P.No.4200 of 2008
31.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
