Madras High Court
Tempel Precision Metal Product ... vs E.Palaniswamy on 27 April, 2022
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
Tempel Precision Metal Product (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.7, Gudapakkam village,
Puducharam Post,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Thiruvallur – 600 124. .. Appellant
Versus
E.Palaniswamy,
No.32/54, 2nd Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Lakshmipuram,
Chrompet, Chennai - 600 044. .. Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 24.01.2022 in W.P.No.11094 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijayan
for King and Partridge
For Respondent : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
for Row and Reddy
JUDGMENT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge, dated
24.01.2022 in W.P.No.11094 of 2017, whereby, the Writ Petition filed by
the respondent/workman was allowed by the learned Judge, in respect of the
relief granted to him by the Labour Court.
2. The facts on record are as follows. The respondent (hereinafter
workman) was appointed as a Driver by an order dated 28.08.2006. On
28.01.2011, a hand written charge-sheet is issued by the authorised
signatory of the appellant (hereinafter Management) to the workman
whereby it was alleged that on 19.08.2010, when the workman was given
the responsibility to oversee the activity of the lifting the scraps from the
factory, around 12'o clock, when the scraps were being lifted, one Senthil
and Mohideen have given Rs.1500/- per load and removed valuable metal
scraps along with other scraps which was found out by the security of the
management, namely Vemanathan and a Police complaint was also given on
19.08.2010 and therefore, it was alleged that since the workman is an
accomplice of theft, the same amounted to misconduct under Rule 16.3 and
Rule 4 of the model certified standing orders and the workman lost the
confidence of the management. Stating so, the workman was called upon to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
submit his explanation within 48 hours from the date of receipt of charge
memo and failing which it was mentioned that disciplinary proceedings will
be initiated against him.
3. After receipt thereof, on 02.02.2011, the workman submitted his
explanation. It is his explanation that even though he was a Driver, upon
being asked to supervise the job of lifting of scraps from May, 2010, he was
performing the same. While so, on 19.08.2010, even during the working
hours, false complaint was given against him and he was sent to the Police
Station and thereafter, he was sent on leave and then the HR personnel had
negotiated with him for ending his employment, but he did not accept.
Thereafter, vindictively, this action has been taken. The receipt for proof of
sending the said explanation by way of registered post is also produced.
Again on 08.02.2011, he made a further representation that he is being
victimised by the management, in which, he has specifically asked for a
copy of the Police complaint given against him. The said representation is
also sent by the registered post and receipt for sending the same is also
produced. Again on 10.03.2011, he made a further representation
requesting the management to drop its vindictive proceedings and give him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
employment and the arrears. On 12.02.2011, an order of discharge from
service of the company is passed stating that inspite of the charge-memo, he
did not submit any explanation and has only been delaying the matters and
therefore, the management has lost confidence for stealing the company's
property and therefore, decided to discharge the workman from 12.02.2011.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised a dispute and
conciliation proceedings were held before the Special Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6 and since the same ended in failure,
the workman thereafter approached the Labour Court, Chennai under
Section 2 - A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. The claim was taken on file as I.D.No.189 of 2013 and it was the
case of the workman that suddenly he was refused work and a false charge
was made against him and absolutely no enquiry was conducted and
therefore, the workman prayed for an award holding that the order dated
12.02.2011, issued by the management discharging the workman from
service, as illegal and unjustified and direct the management to reinstate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
workman in service with continuity of service, full back-wages and all other
attendant benefits.
6. The management filed a counter statement in which it was
contended that the respondent herein was a Supervisor, drawing a salary of
Rs.7500/- and therefore, he was not a workman. On 19.08.2010, the
incident as mentioned in the charge-sheet happened and the respondent
herein, after taking money from the scrap dealers at Rs.1500/- per load, is an
accomplice to theft of valuable scrap materials worth Rs.3,00,000/-.
Therefore, the charge-memorandum was issued. The workman neither
submitted explanation nor attended office and therefore, the order of
discharge was issued. In paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit, it is
pleaded that in the event of the Labour Court deciding that the respondent
herein is not a Supervisor and is entitled to invoke the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the management may be permitted to adduce
evidence before the Court to substantiate the charges leveled against the
workman and justify the order of dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
7. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1
and marked Exs.W-1 to W-22. On behalf of the management, one
Amaladoss was examined as M.W.1 and one Sandeep Chitharanjan was
examined as M.W.2 and Exs.M-1 to M-18 were marked. The Labour Court
found that there was no specific order appointing the workman as
Supervisor or assigning supervisory functions. He was appointed as a
Driver, he was also doing cleaning work and he did not act as Supervisor
and hence a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Thereafter, the Labour Court found that since it is an admitted case
where the workman was dismissed without any enquiry, adverted to the
evidence on record where the management had attempted to prove the
charges before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that as per the
case of the management, one Vemanathan was the one who made a surprise
visit and found the valuable scrap materials being loaded into the lorry. It is
the further case of the management that the Human Resource Manager,
namely Srinivasan, also visited the place and Vemanathan submitted a
written statement. The management miserably failed to examine both of
them and the two witnesses examined by the management had absolutely no
personal knowledge about the occurrence. The Labour Court also found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
that after making a complaint of theft, neither the management pursued the
same nor Police registered any First Information Report and even though in
a case of theft, the case ought to have been registered. Therefore, held that
the management failed to prove the misconduct of the petitioner therein.
8. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the plea of the workman
that the management has victimised him for his alleged involvement in trade
union activities and concluded that the workman had failed to prove that he
was victimised and and since the management has lost faith in the
workman, in lieu of reinstatement into service, ordered a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the workman.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the workman preferred the above Writ
Petition. After hearing both the sides and analysing the materials on record,
the learned Judge took note of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court whereby normally when the management fails to prove the
charges or when there is a wrongful termination, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back-wages is the normal rule and in exceptional
cases compensation can be awarded. After taking note of the said principles,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
applying them on the facts of the case, the learned Judge found that firstly,
after lodging a Police complaint, by considering past good record of the
workman, it is stated by the management that it had not pressed the Police
complaint. Secondly, when the workman has given valid explanation and
without even adverting to the explanation, the impugned order of discharge
from service was passed stating that there is loss of confidence. When no
enquiry at all was conducted, the management has made a mere statement
that there is loss of confidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion
that there is no exceptional circumstance to deviate from the normal rule of
reinstatement with the back-wages and allowed the Writ Petition by
modifying award passed by the Labour Court inasmuch as it ordered
compensation and directed that the workman should be reinstated into
service with continuity of service with full back-wages and all other
attended benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
10. Heard Mr.M.Vijayan, learned Counsel for the management and
Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel for the workman.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
11. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the management that even though the charges against the workman was not
proved, still it is a case where the management pleaded and proved that it
has lost confidence on the workman and therefore, the reinstatement ought
not to have been ordered and the Labour Court was right in awarding
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uttar pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gajadhar Nath1, whereby, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in paragraph No.4, quoted the principles laid down
in the judgment of Workmen Vs. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India
(P) Ltd.2 and thus pleaded that the order of the learned Judge is erroneous in
law. The learned Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Air-India Corporation, Bombay Vs.
V.A.Rebellow and Another3, more specifically on paragraph No.16 that
once the loss of confidence is bona fide then reinstatement ought not to have
been granted.
1 (2022) 3 SCC 190
2 (1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1793 SCC (L&S) 341
3 (1972) 1 SCC 814
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
12. Per contra, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the
workman would contend that this is a case where the management has
admitted even in the charge-sheet that petitioner therein is a Driver but
pleaded that he is a Supervisor and not a workman, before the Labour Court.
Admittedly, this is a case of no enquiry. Apart from not conducing enquiry,
the management did not even mention about the explanation of the
workman to the charges nor looked at it before discharging him from
service. Therefore, he would contend that there was no occasion for the
management to even plead loss of confidence. He would submit that as per
the counter affidavit, if third parties had taken away valuable scrap materials
worth Rs.3,00,000/- and the same was caught red-handed, there was no
justification on the part of the management in withdrawing the complaint
particularly by citing the past good conduct of the workman. He would
therefore submit that the Labour Court, after giving all the findings on
merits in favour of the workman, ought not to have denied him the relief of
reinstatement on the ground that he has further failed to prove victimisation.
13. We have considered the submissions made on either side and the
material records of the case. This is a case where even in the counter filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
to the claim statement, the management pleaded that it may be given an
opportunity to adduce evidence on merits of the charges in the event of the
Labour Court concluding that the workman was not a Supervisor.
Accordingly, once the Labour Court found that the respondent was a
workman and admittedly there being no enquiry, the Labour Court
proceeded to consider the evidence on merits let in by the management to
prove the charges. It had found that the persons who are alleged to have
found out the act of theft were never examined. Therefore, the Labour
Court had rightly held that the charge against the workman is not proved
and the findings upto this stage is not questioned by both the sides.
14. The grievance of the management is in respect of the
consequential relief which has to be granted to the workman. It is their case
that they have expressed loss of confidence and therefore, the learned Single
Judge ought not to have granted the relief of reinstatement with back-wages.
In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce paragraph No.4 of the latest ruling
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Gajadhar Nath4:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
“ 4. The scope of an adjudicator under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the
Act”) may be noticed. The domestic inquiry
conducted can be permitted to be disputed before
the Tribunal in terms of Section 11-A of the Act.
This Court in a judgment reported as Workmen v.
Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.
[Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of
India (P) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC
(L&S) 341] held that in terms of Section 11-A of
the Act, if a domestic inquiry has been held and
finding of misconduct is recorded, the authorities
under the Act have full power and jurisdiction to
reappraise the evidence and to satisfy themselves
whether the evidence justifies the finding of
misconduct. But where the inquiry is found to be
defective, the employer can lead evidence to
prove misconduct before the authority. This Court
held as under: (SCC pp. 827-29, para 32)
“32. From those decisions, the
following principles broadly emerge:
‘(1) The right to take disciplinary
action and to decide upon the quantum
of punishment are mainly managerial
functions, but if a dispute is referred to
a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if
action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the
punishment, an employer is expected to
conduct a proper enquiry in accordance
with the provisions of the Standing
Orders, if applicable, and principles of
natural justice. The enquiry should not
be an empty formality.
(3) When a proper enquiry has
been held by an employer, and the
finding of misconduct is a plausible
conclusion flowing from the evidence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
adduced at the said enquiry, the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in
judgment over the decision of the
employer as an appellate body. The
interference with the decision of the
employer will be justified only when
the findings arrived at in the enquiry
are perverse or the management is
guilty of victimisation, unfair labour
practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been
held by an employer or if the enquiry
held by him is found to be defective, the
Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about
the legality and validity of the order,
had to give an opportunity to the
employer and employee to adduce
evidence before it. It is open to the
employer to adduce evidence for the
first time justifying his action, and it is
open to the employee to adduce
evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not
holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal
would not have to consider only
whether there was a prima facie case.
On the other hand, the issue about the
merits of the impugned order of
dismissal or discharge is at large before
the Tribunal and the latter, on the
evidence adduced before it, has to
decide for itself whether the
misconduct alleged is proved. In such
cases, the point about the exercise of
managerial functions does not arise at
all. A case of defective enquiry stands
on the same footing as no enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction
to consider the evidence placed before
it for the first time in justification of the
action taken only, if no enquiry has
been held or after the enquiry
conducted by an employer is found to
be defective.
(7) It has never been recognised
that the Tribunal should straightaway,
without anything more, direct
reinstatement of a dismissed or
discharged employee, once it is found
that no domestic enquiry has been held
or the said enquiry is found to be
defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to
avail himself of the opportunity of
adducing evidence for the first time
before the Tribunal to justify his action,
should ask for it at the appropriate
stage. If such an opportunity is asked
for, the Tribunal has no power to
refuse. The giving of an opportunity to
an employer to adduce evidence for the
first time before the Tribunal is in the
interest of both the management and the
employee and to enable the Tribunal
itself to be satisfied about the alleged
misconduct.
(9) Once the misconduct is
proved either in the enquiry conducted
by an employer or by the evidence
placed before a tribunal for the first
time, punishment imposed cannot be
interfered with by the Tribunal except
in cases where the punishment is so
harsh as to suggest victimisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
(10) In a particular case, after
setting aside the order of dismissal,
whether a workman should be
reinstated or paid compensation is, as
held by this Court in Panitole Tea
Estate v. Workmen [Panitole Tea
Estate v. Workmen, (1971) 1 SCC 742]
within the judicial decision of a Labour
Court or Tribunal.’ ””
Thus, even as per this judgment, the Hon'be Supreme Court of India
had mentioned that whether the workman has to be reinstated or paid
compensation is to be as per the principles held in Management of Panitole
Tea Estate Vs. Workmen5. It is essential to quote paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of
the said judgment in Panitole Tea Estate, which is as follows:
“ 5. In our opinion the present case is not
one in which we would be justified in interfering
on appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
with the order of the Tribunal. The question
whether on setting aside the wrongful dismissal
of a workman he should be reinstated or directed
to be paid compensation is a matter within the
judicial discretion of the Labour Court or the
Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the
general rule in the absence of any special
circumstances being of reinstatement. In
exercising this discretion, fairplay towards the
employee on the one hand and interest of the
employer, including considerations of discipline
in the establishment, on the other, require to be
duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the
interest both of security of tenure of the employee
and of smooth and harmonious working of the
5 (1971) 1 SCC 742
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
establishment. Legitimate interests of both of
them have to be kept in view if the order is
expected to promote the desired objective of
industrial peace and maximum possible
production. The past record of the employee, the
nature of the alleged conduct for which action
was taken against him, the grounds on which the
order of the employed is set aside, the nature of
the duties performed by the employee concerned
and the nature of the industrial establishment are
some of the broad relevant factors which require
to be taken into consideration. The factors just
stated are merely illustrative and it is not
possible to exhaustively enumerate them. Each
case has to be decided on its own facts and no
hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover
generally all conceivable contingencies. Proper
balance has to be maintained between the
conflicting claims of the employer and the
employee without jeopardising the larger
interests of industrial peace and progress. In
Hindustan Steels Ltd. case this Court substituted
the order of reinstatement by an order of
payment of compensation on the ground that the
police report and the security officer's
recommendation to the company showed that it
was not desirable for reasons of security to
reinstate the employee. In that case it was
observed:
“As exceptions to the general rule of
reinstatement, there have been cases
where reinstatement has not been
considered as either desirable or
expedient. These were the cases where
there had been strained relations
between the employer and the
employee, where the post held by the
aggrieved employee had been one of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
trust and confidence or where, though
dismissal or discharge was
unsustainable owing to some infirmity
in the impugned order, the employee
was found to have been guilty of an
activity subversive of or prejudicial to
the interests of the industry. These
cases are to be found in Assam Oil Co.
Ltd. v. Workmen, [(1960) 3 SCR 457]
Workmen of Charottar Gramodhar
Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Charottar
Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd.
[ CA 382/66, decided on 14-8-1967 :
(1967) 15 FLR 395] Doomur Dulung
Tea Estate v. Workmen [ CA 516/1966,
decided on 26-10-1967] and Ruby
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.P.
Chopra. These are, however,
illustrative cases where an exception
was made to the general rule. No hard
and fast rule as to which circumstances
would in a given case constitute an
exception to the general rule can
possibly be laid down as the Tribunal
in each case, keeping the objectives of
industrial adjudication in mind, must
in a spirit of fairness and justice
confront the question whether the
circumstances of the case require that
an exception should be made and
compensation would meet the ends of
justice.”
The general rule of reinstatement in the
absence of special circumstances was also
recognised in the case of Workmen of Assam
Match Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Assam [ CAs 1970-1971 of 1963, decided
on 27-10-1964] and has again been affirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
recently in Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour
Court, W.B. [ CA 1607 of 1966, decided on 3-2-
1971 : 1971 (22) FLR 148] In Tulsidas Paul it
has been emphasised that no hard and fast rule
as to which circumstances would establish an
exception to the general rule could be laid down
and the Tribunal must in each case decide the
question in a spirit of fairness and justice in
keeping with the objectives of industrial
adjudication.
6. In the present case Shri Chagla has laid
main stress on the submission that the
management has lost confidence in Bhagavati's
integrity and it would be wholly improper to
force his reinstatement on the management. The
store of which this workman was in charge,
according to the learned counsel, contains goods
worth lakhs of rupees and in the absence of the
requisite confidence in his integrity the order of
reinstatement is likely to harm the cause of
industrial peace in the appellant concern. The
appellant has expressed willingness to pay any
reasonable amount by way of compensation. We
have in support of the plea of want of confidence
been taken through the correspondence between
the management and Bhagavati. From that
correspondence we are unable to conclude that
the management lost confidence in Bhagavati
because of the lapses mentioned therein. It
appears that it was only when the management
suspected Bhagavati's collusion with Borgohain
that the management felt that his integrity was
questionable. That chit having been found not to
be in Bhagavati's handwriting and Bhagavati's
dismissal having been held to be wrongful we are
unable to sustain the plea of want of confidence
raised by Shri Chagla. It is significant that no
such plea was sought to be substantiated before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
the Labour Court. It is undoubtedly true that the
store of the Tea Estate would contain goods of
substantial value and a person really suspected
of being untrustworthy may not justifiably be
forced on the unwilling employer, but that aspect
requires determination on facts which should
have been properly placed before the Labour
Court and a finding secured after appropriate
trial. The suggestion that having regard to the
nature of the proceedings against Bhagavati,
the management has lost confidence is
unacceptable. A similar argument was repelled
in the case of Assam Match Co. If the workman
is entitled as a general rule to be reinstated after
his wrongful dismissal is set aside and on the
facts it is not possible to find cogent material on
which the establishment can genuinely be
considered to have lost confidence in the
integrity of the workman he is entitled to be
reinstated. The next argument that Bhagavati
should not be forced on the management after a
lapse of ten years is equally unacceptable
because if his dismissal was wrongful then
merely because proceedings for adjudication of
the industrial dispute have taken a long time is by
itself no reason for not directing his
reinstatement if it is otherwise justified being in
accordance with normal rule. A similar
contention was also repelled in the case of Assam
Match Co.. In Swadesmitran case also this Court
observed that in the case of wrongful dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment a claim for
reinstatement cannot be defeated merely because
time has elapsed or that the employer has
engaged fresh hands. We are, therefore, unable
on the existing record to sustain the appellant's
submission that the order of reinstatement made
by the Labour Court suffers from any legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
infirmity justifying its substitution by an order of
payment of compensation to the workman. A
suggestion has been thrown by Shri Chagla that
in all probability the employee must have secured
employment elsewhere as he could not have
remained idle all these years and payment of
compensation in place of reinstatement would,
therefore, cause him no prejudice. On behalf of
the employee it is denied that he had been
employed anywhere else during this period. In
our opinion, this matter being controversial
should have been raised before the Labour Court
and we are not in a position to express any
opinion on it in the present proceedings.”
Therefore, the question of awarding compensation in lieu of
reinstatement is considered to be an exception while the normal rule is
reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service.
15. The instances of exceptions such as the workman occupying a
post of trust, recurrent conducts leading to doubtful integrity; or the
dismissal and discharge being unsustainable owing to some infirmity in the
order; or the action of the employee is found to be an activity subversive to
the interest of the society; though held are indicative, it is also held that no
hard and fast rule can be laid down and it has to be decided in each case in
the spirit of fairness and keeping with the objects of industrial adjudication.
In this context, a perusal of paragraph No.9 of the award of the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
Court, it would be clear that the Labour Court had, after finding that there
was no enquiry and procedure is unfair, after finding that the evidence let in
by the management, the charges against him were not at all proved, held as
if the workman has to further prove victimisation to earn the relief of
reinstatement with back-wages. The said finding and approach are against
the tenets and objects of industrial adjudication. On the other hand, the
learned Single Judge had considered in detail that once the management
decided not to press the Police complaint, considering past action of the
employee, it cannot even factually contend that it has lost confidence in the
employee and secondly, when there was no iota of evidence on the merits of
charge and the order of termination expressing loss of confidence was
passed without even considering the explanation submitted by the workman,
considering the nature of the duties of the workman, has rightly, in the spirit
of fairness and justice, concluded that this is a case where the workman is
entitled to reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellant further relied upon the
judgment in Air-India Corporation, Bombay Vs. V.A.Rebellow and
Another6, in which, after suspecting misconduct against workman by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
invoking Regulation 48 of the Air India Corporation, whereby, without
expressing any misconduct or causing stigma, the management relieved the
workman from service, by way of termination simpliciter. In that context,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the action that as when the
management has bona fide lost confidence and when they have invoked
Regulation 48, such legitimate opinion need not be interfered with. It is
useful to extract paragraph No.16 of the said judgment which is relied upon
by the learned Counsel for the appellant, which is as hereunder:-
“ 16. Regulation 48 which has been set out
earlier as its plain language shows does not lay
down or contemplate any defined essential pre-
requisite for invoking its operation. Action under
this Regulation can be validly taken by the
employer at his sweet will without assigning any
reason. He is not bound to disclose why he does
not want to continue in service the employee
concerned. It may be conceded that an employer
must always have some reason for terminating
the services of his employee. Such reasons apart
from misconduct may, inter alia, be want of full
satisfaction with his overall suitability in the job
assigned to the employee concerned. The fact that
the employer is not fully satisfied with the overall
result of the performance of his duties by his
employee does not necessarily imply misconduct
on his part. The only thing that remains to be
seen is if in this case the impugned order is mala
fide. The record merely discloses that the
appellant had suspicion about the complainant's
suitability for the job in which he was employed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
and this led to loss of confidence in him with the
result that his services were terminated under
Regulation 48. In our view, loss of confidence in
such circumstances cannot be considered to be
mala fide. We are unable to conceive of any
rational challenge to the bona fides of the
employer in making the impugned order in the
above background. The complainant, it may be
remembered had to deal with Air Hostesses in the
performance of his duties and if the appellant
was not fully satisfied beyond suspicion about his
general conduct and behaviour while dealing
with them it cannot be said that loss of
confidence was not bona fide. Once bona fide
loss of confidence is affirmed the impugned order
must be considered to be immune from challenge.
The opinion formed by the employer about the
suitability of his employee for the job assigned to
him even though erroneous, if bona fide, is in our
opinion final and not subject to review by the
industrial adjudication. Such opinion may
legitimately induce the employer to terminate the
employee's services; but such termination can on
no rational grounds be considered to be for
misconduct and must, therefore, be held to be
permissible and immune from challenge.”
Thus, it may be seen that the principles laid down in the said
judgment can have no application at all in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
17. Thus, we find no merits in the contention of the appellant and the
Writ Appeal is without any merits and is dismissed. However, there shall be
no orders as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6613 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., C.J.) (D.B.C., J.)
27.04.2022
Index : yes
Speaking order
grs
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
grs
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1048 of 2022
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
