Madras High Court
The Management vs N.Ravi on 30 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.Nos.87, 88 and 100 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos. 1221, 1228, 1229, 1399 and 1397 of 2020
W.A.No.87 of 2020
The Management
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Ravi
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore. ..Respondents
W.A.No.88 of 2020
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
27, Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. By its General Manager. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
2.N.Ravi ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.100 of 2020
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
27, Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. By its General Manager. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
2.N.Ravi ..Respondents
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 25.07.2019 made in W.P.Nos.40048 of 2005, 12791 of
2006 and 17864 of 2012.
For Appellant .. Mr.D.Venkatachalam
(in all cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
These three appeals arise from the common order passed by
learned single Judge dated 25 July 2019 recorded on W.P.Nos.40048
of 2005, 12791 of 2006 and 17846 of 2012. The parties to all the
three writ petitions are the same and in these appeals also, they are
the same. These appeals are by the management (State Road
Transport Corporation) and the respondent/ workman is one in all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
three appeals, since before learned single Judge also, three petitions
were arising from the claim of that very workman from the award of
the labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.168 of 1994.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that
the respondent/ workman (driver) had indulged in serious misconduct
of facilitating misconduct by two officials and criminal proceedings
were also instituted against him and considering the seriousness, the
punishment of dismissal was ordered. It is submitted that the labour
Court ought not to have interfered in it and since that interference was
made, writ petitions filed by the management ought to have been
allowed by learned single Judge. It is submitted that rejection of writ
petition filed by the management, challenging the interference in the
dismissal of the respondent/ workman by the Labour Court, is
erroneous and therefore the same be interfered with by this Court. It
is submitted that other petition filed by the respondent/ workman
praying for other benefits ought not to have entertained at all and
since the impugned order grants some more reliefs to the workman,
that part of the impugned order also needs to be interfered with. It is
submitted that these appeals be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having
considered the material on record, this Court finds that:
3.1. The labour Court on the basis of the evidence before it
arrived at the conclusion that charge against the respondent/ workman
could not be proved and in absence of any valid evidence, dismissal
was set aside.
3.2. Learned single Judge has on the basis of the material on
record in all the three writ petitions, concurred with the finding of the
labour Court and has dismissed the petition filed by the management.
3.3. We find that when the labour Court and learned single Judge
both have satisfied that there was no evidence against the respondent/
workman to punish him departmentally, no interference is required in
that part of the order of learned single Judge. Therefore, the order of
learned single Judge confirming the award of labour Court and setting
aside the dismissal of respondent/ workman is confirmed.
3.4. The other issue is consequential benefits to be paid to the
respondent/ workman. The management was harping that the
respondent/ workman is not entitled to anything. The workman was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
harping that he was entitled to everything. Learned single Judge on
the basis of material before the Court, recorded in para 12 as under:
“11.As far as the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the Labour Court ought to
have awarded continuity of service, attendant benefits and
backwages are concerned, the Labour Court has denied the
said relief on the ground that the petitioner did not seek
such relief in the Claim Petition. When the Labour Court
held that charges are not proved and ordered
reinstatement, the continuity of service and back wages
are consequential, unless the materials on record proves
that worker is not entitled to said relief. In the present
case, there is no material before the Labour Court for not
awarding continuity of service and attendant benefits. The
petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and attendant
benefits. As far as back wages are concerned, the
petitioner has not pleaded that he was not gainfully
employed after order of dismissal and hence, he is entitled
to back wages. Considering the fact that the petitioner was
dismissed from service without there being evidence
against him and he was arrested and faced criminal
proceedings, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to 50%
back wages. In the result, the W.P.No.40048 of 2005 filed
by the petitioner is partly allowed and W.P.No.12791 of
2006 filed by the respondent Transport Corporation is
dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.W.P.No.17864 of 2012 filed by the respondent
Transport Corporation is challenging the order passed in
the Claim Petition C.P.No.258 of 2009 on the file of the
Labour Court, Cuddalore, directing them to pay a sum of
Rs.76,625/- as salary to the petitioner for the period from
01.04.2006 to 30.09.2009. In view of the order passed by
this Court in the above two Writ Petitions viz.,
W.P.Nos.40048 of 2005, 12791 of 2006, this Writ Petition
is disposed of, directing the respondent to comply with the
order passed by this Court within a period of sixteen weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
3.5. We find that equities are balanced by learned single Judge
by quantifying the consequential benefits to be paid to the respondent/
workman. We do not find any error in that part of the order, either.
4. In totality, we arrive at the conclusion that learned single
Judge, while recording the order dated 25.07.2019 can not be said to
have fallen in any error which may call for any interference in an intra-
court appeal. These three appeals therefore need to be dismissed.
5. It is also noted that, during the course of hearing, learned
advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
management is facing contempt proceedings. We note that the order
impugned in these appeals is 25 July 2019 and sufficient delay is
caused in paying the benefits to the respondent/ workman. We do not
extend the time limit prescribed in the order of learned single Judge.
6. For the above reasons, all these three appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.U.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
30.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/11
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.Nos.87,88 and 100 of 2020
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
