Madras High Court
The General Manager vs R.Chandrasekaran 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.No.2834 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18854 of 2021
The General Manager
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd., Zonal Office,
Chennai Bangalore National Highways,
Ponnerikarai,
Kancheepuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
R.Chandrasekaran .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 05.10.2020 made in W.P.No.33741 of 2019.
For Appellant .. Mr.G.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent/caveator .. Ms.D.Nagasaila
for Ms.A.Dhanalakshmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 05 October
2020 in W.P.No.33741 of 2019. This appeal is by the original writ
petitioner – State Road Transport Corporation.
2. In the petition, challenge was made to the award passed by
the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated 29.09.2016 in I.D.No.230 of
2014 be quashed and set aside.
3. This appeal arises under the following facts:
3.1 The respondent / workman was inflicted punishment of
dismissal from service after departmental enquiry, which led to an
industrial dispute. The Labour Court modified the said dismissal and
inflicted withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
This was challenged by the management in writ petition.
3.2 Learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition. The
operative part reads as under:
“19. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court feel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the original punishment given by the
Disciplinary Authority (i.e.,) dismissal from service
against the respondent can be modified into
compulsory retirement which would serve the
purpose and therefore, accordingly, the impugned
award is liable to be modified suitably. In the
result, the following orders are passed:
(i) the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in
I.D.No.230 of 2014 is hereby modified to the
following effect.
(ii) that the respondent/employee shall be
inflicted with the punishment of compulsory
retirement with effect from 15.05.2010, that is,
the date on which the punishment of dismissal
from service has been imposed against him.
Consequently, the respondent/employee shall be
entitled to get service benefits as applicable.
Accordingly, the Transport Corporation shall
calculate the service benefits payable to the
respondent/employee, taking into account the
modified punishment of compulsory retirement
imposed against him with effect from 15.05.2010
and disburse the same within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.3 It is the above direction, which is challenged in this appeal
by the management. The workman is not in appeal so far, and
therefore that question is not examined.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant / Management has
submitted that considering the past conduct of the workman,
interference by learned single Judge was not justified and therefore
the order of learned single Judge be interfered with. It is noted that
the learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court extensively
through the misconducts committed by the respondent / workman on
earlier occasion and the punishment imposed by the management. It is
submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the
award of labour Court. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent/ workman is present in
the Court on caveat, however, we have not called upon learned
advocate for the respondent.
6. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having
considered the material on record this Court finds as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.1 For the so-called misconduct of some illegality of Rs.124/-,
economical death of the respondent / workman was ordered by the
Management. He was working as conductor since more than 24 years.
6.2 The labour Court, while exercising its discretion arrived at
the conclusion that the said punishment was unsustainable and the
same was modified as withholding of two annual increments with
cumulative effect.
6.3 Learned Single Judge while accepting the say of the
appellant / management, continued the workman to be out of job,
since dismissal is modified as compulsory retirement, which would
entitle the respondent / workman to have his terminal benefits.
6.4 We do not find that the discretion exercised by learned
Single Judge calls for any interference, at least in the appeal filed by
the management. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
7. For the above reason, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. While dismissing this appeal, we make it clear that non-
interference in the order of learned single Judge in the appeal by the
management is not to mean confirmation of the impugned order and in
the event any challenge is made by the workman, it may be examined
on its own merits. We note that, the time to comply with the directions
of learned Single Judge has passed long back. The amount payable to
the workman shall be paid without any further delay.
(P.U.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
30.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2834 of 2021
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
