Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs K.Amirthalingam on 28 June, 2021
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.2843 of 2014 and
M.P No.1 of 2014
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd,
Kumbakonam Division-I,
Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. K.Amirthalingam
2. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the 2nd respondent made in
I.D.No.300 of 2007 dated 21.02.2013 and quash the order as illegal and against the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondents : Ms.M.Sangeetha
for Mr.G.Purushothaman (R1)
No appearance (R2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second
respondent made in I.D.No.300 of 2007 dated 21.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal
and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The case of the Petitioner/Management is that the second respondent joined
services of the Management as a Conductor in the year 1991 and he was carrying
money lending business illegally and without any proper authorizations, which leads to
major misconduct. It is further stated that on 08.09.2003, the second respondent was
allotted second shift duty in Route No.A30 and despite instructions being given to him
from the bus stand Engineer and Branch Manager of the Management, the second
respondent failed to take the bus for the reasons known to him. Further, on 15.09.2003
at 11.00 P.M., the second respondent along with two other social elements attacked the
Divisional Manager, resulting in grave injury, for which a criminal case has been
registered against him and thereafter the second respondent was placed under
suspension on 26.09.2003. A charge memo was issued to him on 01.10.2003, for which
the second respondent submitted explanations dated 08.10.2003 and 29.03.2004. The
Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 29.10.2004, found him guilty of the charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
3. Thereafter, a notice was issued to him seeking explanation for which the
second respondent gave his explanations on 21.12.2004 and 16.03.2005. A second
show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2005 and the second respondent submitted his
explanation on 25.04.2005. Since, the same was not satisfactory, an order of dismissal
was passed against the second respondent on 05.05.2006.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the second respondent raised an industrial
dispute before the first respondent, in I.D.No.300 of 2007, seeking reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages and other attendant benefits. The Labour Court
passed an award dated 21.02.2003 by ordering reinstatement with continuity of service
and without backwages and other benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the First Respondent/employee submitted
that the Labour Court on finding that the charges against the First
Respondent/employee were not proved, has rightly set aside the punishment of
dismissal from service and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and without
backwages and other benefits and therefore, the order of the Labour Court requires no
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
7. The charge against the employee/Second Respondent is that he assaulted his
superior officer and apart from criminal case, a departmental proceeding has also been
initiated against him. Both the cases were proceeded independently. In the Criminal
Court, the employee got acquittal and therefore, as against the order of dismissal from
service, the employee approached the Conciliation Officer for conciliation, which
ended in failure ultimately giving raise to an Industrial Dispute, wherein the respective
parties have contested the disputes, by producing 38 documents on behalf of the
workman and 34 documents on the side of the Management. The workman has
examined himself as W.W.1 and none was examined on behalf of the Management.
8. On considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court has
interfered with the dismissal order of the Second Respondent by observing that he
worked in the Management for 17 years, as per Ex.W38 circular issued by the
Management. It was further observed that in case of acquital from criminal case, the
said aspect has to be taken note of and as per Ex.W33-Judgment the second respondent
was acquitted from the criminal case. Therefore, the Labour Court inferred that the
charges against the second respondent were not proved and thereby granted the relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service only and the relief of backwages and other
attendant benefits were denied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
9. No doubt, the Labour Court had got powers to interfere with the
charges/finding of the Enquiry Officer, if it is perverse. As per Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court can interfere with the punishment imposed on
an employee, for proved acts of misconduct and such interference should not be on the
ground of misplaced sympathy and it should be only in exceptional circumstances,
where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the charges.
10. It is pertinent to the state here that, both the criminal case and departmental
enquiry are independent of each other and the finding of the Civil Court will bind on the
Criminal Court, whereas the decision arrived at by the Criminal Court will not bind on
the Civil Court, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
M/s.Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another vs. Union of India and Others, reported in
AIR 1971 SC 1244. T the Apex Court held as under:-
"It is well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil
courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true."
11. Thus it is clear that, the verdict of the Criminal Court will have no bearing
in the departmental proceedings. Even assuming that acquittal is going to be upheld by
the Supreme Court, as stated supra, as the criminal proceedings and departmental
proceedings are independent of each other and the finding of the Criminal Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
proceeding will not affect the departmental proceedings. Therefore, setting aside the
order of dismissal on the ground of acquittal by the Criminal Court is contrary to
aforesaid decision. The Criminal Court verdict can be looked into for the purpose of
corroboration/contradiction, but certainly the finding thereon will not affect the
Departmental Proceedings and may not be binding on the Departmental Proceedings.
12. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the
second respondent dated 21.02.2013 made in I.D.No.300 of 2007 is set aside. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.06.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
arr
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
arr
W.P.No.2843 of 2014
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
