Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu State Transport vs The Presiding Officer on 21 June, 2021
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Tamil Nadu State Transport,
Corporation (Villupuram) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kancheepuram. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.
2.Vijayakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the final order passed in
W.P.No.37083 of 2005 dated 13.09.2012 as illegal.
1/8
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
TNSTC
For R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated
13.09.2004 made in W.P.No.37083 of 2005 confirming the findings and the
conclusions reached by the learned Principle Labour Court, Chennai, in its
award dated 15.09.2004 passed in I.D.No.14 of 2000 wherein the 2nd
respondent herein having raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement of his service with
continuity of service with back wages and all other attendant benefits,
succeeded on the ground that when the appellant Transport Corporation
issued a Charge Memo dated 05.01.1997, that charge memo was wantonly
and willfully sent to a false address so as to deny him fair and reasonable
opportunity to take part in the enquiry to disprove the charges.
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
2.The learned Labour Court considering the case on both parties
proceeded as follows:
''7. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner
was absent for so many days. Letters were issued to the
petitioner by R.P.A.D and notice of enquiry was also issued
by R.P.A.D and all the letters were returned as 'no such
addressee' and ''left'' Ex.W.4 was marked through M.W.1,
Ex.W.4 was admitted by M.W.1. So it is evident from the
above that the petitioner was residing at 29-N/1,
Thattamalai Street, Chengalpattu. But notice and letters
were sent to some other address and that is evident from the
documents marked on the side of the respondent. So, it is
evident that no notice was served as per law. It is also
evident that the respondent's management is wantonly and
willfully sent the letters, charge an memo and other
proceedings to a false address, which was not furnished by
the petitioner. In this case no publication was made
regarding the domestic enquiry. The petitioner was not given
enough and sufficient opportunity to participated in the
enquiry. The evidence adduced on the side of the respondent
is not satisfactory and acceptable. For the reasons stated
above I hold that the non-employment of the petitioner is not
justified and the petitioner is entitled to the relief of
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits. The point is
answered accordingly.
8.In the result, an award is passed holding that the
non-employment of the petitioner is not justified and that the
petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service
with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant
benefits. No costs.''
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant went before the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.37083 of 2005. The learned Single Judge seeing the
conduct and approach of the appellant in not taking any fair approach in
giving reasonable approach to hold enquiry in the manner known to law,
rightly confirmed the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Aggrieved
against the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
3.Heard Mr.C.S.K.Sathish learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr.K.M.Ramesh learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that it is no
doubt true that the charge memo dated 20.05.1995 was sent to the
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
respondent by RPAD which was also returned with an endorsement ''left'',
but subsequently for the reason being known to the Enquiry Officer, the
enquiry was held holding that charges were proved and finally, another
show cause notice dated 27.06.1995 was issued to the 2nd respondent by
RPAD and that was also returned back by the Postal Department. However,
this was displayed on the notice board in the depot. Therefore, it could be
presumed that the notice has been properly served. This argument can
never be appreciated by this Court for the simple reason that when the
charge memo dated 05.01.1995 was issued while sending notice of enquiry,
it is a strict responsible, obligation and liability, if we may say so, on the
part of the Transport Department including the enquiry officer to ensure that
the notice of enquiry has been properly served on the delinquent employee
which has not been taken care of. As this issue has been repeatedly gone
into by both the learned labour Court in its award dated 15.09.2004 and
also by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 15.09.2004, holding that
no reasonable opportunity was fairly given to the second respondent. we are
unable to find any error whatsoever in the impugned order. The reason
being that when the second respondent was issued with a charge memo
without holding enquiry giving fair opportunity to explain his position, the
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
approach of the appellant holding him guilty is unknown to law. Therefore,
this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed thereby confirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated
dated 13.09.2012 made in W.P.No.37083 of 2005. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
21.06.2021
vsn
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
To
The Presiding Officer,
Prinicipal Labour Court,
Chennai.
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsn
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
W.A.No.1541 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
21.06.2021
