Madras High Court
Management vs (Rr 3 To 5 Impleaded As Legal Heirs ... on 20 April, 2022
W.A.No.881 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.4.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.881 of 2022 &
CMP.No.5912 of 2022
Management
Rep by President MRF Employees Cooperative
Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Tiruvotriyur
Chennai 600 109.
.. Appellant
vs
1 T.S.Inpasekaran (Died)
2 The Presiding Officer
First Additional Labour Court Chennai 04.
3 I.Kalaidevi
4 I.Madhan Inbasekaran
5 U.Anusuya
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
(RR 3 to 5 impleaded as legal heirs of deceased
1st respondent viz., T.S.Inbasekaran vide court order
dated 07.02.2022 made in C.M.P.No.21283 of
2021 in W.A.SR.No.131612 of 2019.)
.. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.23062 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prakasam
for Caveators (RR 3 to 5)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, a challenge has been made to the order
dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.23062 of 2011, by which, the
writ petition filed challenging the award of the Labour Court was
dismissed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
that while holding the enquiry to be unfair by the Labour Court, the
management was not given an opportunity to lead evidence, though
the same is permissible and otherwise, the Labour Court was under
an obligation to take up the issue about fairness of enquiry as the
preliminary issue. But, in the instant case, it was not taken as the
preliminary issue. Rather, the award was passed adverse to the
management. Thus, the award of the Labour Court should have
been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
4. The facts, which have not been disputed by the learned
counsel for the appellant are that after reference of the dispute to
the Labour Court and completion of the pleadings by the parties,
the Labour Court had taken up the matter to find out the fairness of
the domestic enquiry. After detailed arguments, the Labour Court
recorded the enquiry to be unfair. Since the enquiry was held to be
unfair, there was nothing left with the Labour Court except to
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
declare the order of punishment to be illegal in the absence of any
material to prove the charges.
5. In view of the above, the issue of fairness of enquiry was
taken up as the preliminary issue. The enquiry was found to be
unfair and no request was made by the management to allow them
to lead evidence to prove charges, thus, nothing remained in the
matter other than to declare the order of punishment to be illegal.
6. It is thus not correct to state that the management was not
given an opportunity to lead evidence after holding the enquiry to
be unfair. In fact, a request for it should have been made by the
management in the written statement stating that if the enquiry is
held to be unfair, the management may be given an opportunity to
lead evidence to prove the charges. No such request was made by
the management while filing a counter or written statement.
7. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Shambhu Nath Vs. Bank of Baroda [AIR 1984 SC 289], the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
management ought to have made a request before entering into the
arguments as to the fairness of enquiry to allow them to lead
evidence. But, in the instant case, no such request was made by
the management before entering into the arguments about the
fairness of enquiry.
8. In the light of what is stated above, there was no prayer
made by the management to allow them to lead evidence if the
enquiry is to be declared to be unfair. The prayer aforesaid was not
made even immediately on passing the order and it cannot be
stated that the management was not given an opportunity to lead
evidence to prove the charges. Rather, the management failed to
discharge their part of obligation to make a request for it, as given
above. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the award
passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
9. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. There will be
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
20.4.2022
Index : Yes/No
To:
The Presiding Officer
First Additional Labour Court Chennai 04.
RS
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.881 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
RS
W.A.No.881 of 2022 &
CMP.No.5912 of 2022
20.4.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
