Madras High Court
S.Jayapaul vs The Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
S.Jayapaul ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Management of Trichy Distilleries
and Chemicals Limited,
Senthaneerpuram,
Tiruchirapalli-620 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
award, dated 30.10.2013, passed in I.D.No.239 of 2003 by the 1st respondent
dismissing the Industrial Dispute against the petitioner non employment in so far
as holding that the non employment of the petitioner/workman concerned was
justifiable and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief from the second
respondent and to quash the same and to hold the termination of the petitioner /
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
workman concerned by the second respondent from 20.06.1986 was illegal,
unjustified and vindictive and consequently, to direct the second respondent to
pay the petitioner's back wages from the date of the petitioner's illegal termination
upto the date of his superannuation and all other attendant and terminal benefits
and award costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For R1 : Labour Court
For R2 : Mr.K.Prabhakar
*****
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned orders, dated 30.10.2013
and to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner's back wages from the date of
the petitioner's illegal termination upto the date of his superannuation and all
other attendant and terminal benefits and award costs.
2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner was working
as a Senior Power House Operator under the second respondent. The petitioner
was persistently demanding to provide adequate safety measures and for which
disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, vide Charge Sheet, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
10.08.1985. When two accidents took place, one on February 1985 and another
on 5th August 1985, the petitioner expressed that if the General Manager had
provided adequate safety measures as demanded by the petitioner Union, these
accidents would not have taken place. The workers of the second respondent
company went on a day's strike on 06.08.1985 as a mark of protest against the
failure on the part of the management to meet the reasonable demands of the
petitioner Union. On hearing the instantaneous death of one worker Subramanian
and on seeing two workers struggling to breathe, the petitioner reacted
emotionally and blamed the General Manager for the death of two workmen who
was standing beside the bed of a worker battling for life. The Union President
Meenakshisundaram calmed down the petitioner and the petitioner apologized to
the General Manager.
3. In such circumstances the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet cum
suspension order, dated 10.08.1995, falsely alleging that the petitioner abused and
assaulted the General Manager on 05.08.1985. Denying the allegations as false
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
and vindictive, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 19.08.1985. As the
impugned disciplinary action was premeditated, predetermined, vindictive
exercise, within a day of submitting explanation the enquiry proceedings were
initiated and also informed the date of the enquiry. On the next date, the petitioner
was dispatched with the copies of the alleged reports of one Mr.Rengarajan and
Mr.Ezhuthautham, which the petitioner demanded to submit his detailed
explanation.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that even before the adjourned enquiry
was proceeded, the management had immobilized the petitioner and curtailed his
liberties by falsely implicating in a criminal case which ultimately ended in
honorable acquittal. The management proceeded with the enquiry with another
biased enquiry officer and the enquiry was not fair and due opportunity was not
provided to the petitioner. Even the complaint which is the basis of the impugned
charge reportedly preferred by the General Manager, despite request was not
produced and its existence was deliberately suppressed. The petitioner's plea for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
assistance of the Union President was disallowed which forced the petitioner to
take the assistance of co-workers who had studied only 10th Standard. The
General Manager deposed in English and his statement and answers were
translated in Tamil by the Management representative and were recorded by the
enquiry Officer in Tamil. Statement and answers in English were not recorded
along with Tamil renderings greatly prejudiced the petitioner. Moreover, the
Principles of Natural Justice were not followed.
5. Based on the perverse findings of the enquiry officer, a second show
cause notice, dated 19.05.1986 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner
submitted his explanation, dated 14.06.1986, along with the copy of the judgment
of the Appellate Court in Criminal case dated 05.06.1986 and the written
arguments submitted before the appellate Court. But the second respondent
dismissed the petitioner from services by an order, dated 20.06.1986. Against the
order of dismissal Industrial Dispute was raised in I.D.No.148 of 1987. The
Labour Court had adjudicated the dispute on merits and passed an award
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
dismissing the I.D. by deciding the preliminary issue alone. Against the award
passed in I.D.No.148 of 1987, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10797 of 1990 and the
Hon’ble Court vide judgment, dated 09.07.1999, held that the Labour Court,
Madurai failed to consider the findings of the criminal appeal and applying the
principle laid down in Paul Anthony case (AIR 1999 SC-1416) held that it was a
fair case to remand back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal by taking into
consideration of the observation made by the Criminal Court and both parties are
at liberty to raise all the objections before the Labour Court to sustain their
contentions.
6. The second respondent company filed an appeal in W.A.No.1960 of 1999
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.10797 of
1990 and the same dismissed. The papers were transferred to the Labour Court,
Tiruchirapalli and the same was ultimately taken on file by renumbering the same
as I.D.No. 239 of 2003. The second respondent had taken the stand that the entire
matter cannot be tried, but the same is contrary to their stand in the Writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
Hence the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.52 of 2006 praying to hold
fresh adjudication of the Industrial Dispute on hand pursuant to the remand order.
The Labour Court at Tiruchirapalli passed an order, dated 12.11.2012 and
observed that the award was not quashed, but remanded back the matter only for a
limited purpose of taking into consideration of the findings of the Criminal Court
and further observed that unless and until the award passed was set aside by the
Honourable High Court, the Labour Court at Tiruchirapalli cannot annul, modify
or alter the terms of the order of the award as was passed already. The Labour
Court, Tiruchirapalli further suggested the petitioner Union to approach the
Honourable High Court for setting aside the terms of the award and closed
the I.A.No.52 of 2006.
7. The petitioner Union had filed a petition for clarification in the Writ
Appeal in W.A.No.1960 of 1999 and the Division Bench vide order, dated
08.04.2008, holding that the remand was for the failure of the Labour Court to
take into consideration the finding of Honourable acquittal recorded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
Criminal Court and also holding that the remand order passed by the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench being specific, no further clarification of
such order is required and that the Labour Court is supposed to act in accordance
with the order passed by this Court and conclude the proceedings at an early date.
The first respondent has passed the impugned award adjudicating on merits and
dismissed the reference and thereby depriving the petitioner of the opportunities
to be heard on the proof of the impugned charges and the proportionality of the
impugned punishment. The first respondent instead of deciding the preliminary
issue wrongly decided main dispute itself. The petitioner also submitted that he
has already reached the age of superannuation.
8. Heard Mr.N.Balakrishnan the Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Raghuvaran Gopalan for Mr.K.Prabhakar appearing for the 2nd
respondent and perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Labour Court instead of deciding the preliminary issue wrongly decided main
dispute itself. Moreover, the Labour Court by adjudicating on merits, dismissed
the reference and thereby depriving the petitioner of the opportunities to be heard
on the proof of the impugned charges and the proportionality of the impugned
punishment and hence prayed to remit back to the Labour Court for re-
adjudication the entire issue afresh. The Learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the Labour Court had considered the issue as per the
directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench and has rendered a finding and there is
no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court.
10. On hearing the rival submissions and after perusing the records this
Court has given its anxious consideration. The Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner prayed to remit the case to the Labour Court for considering the
preliminary issue by granting opportunity to the petitioner. Since already the
Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has remitted the case to the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
Court, this Court is of the considered opinion again remitting the case would not
serve the purpose of litigation. Therefore, this Court proceeds further to scrutinize
the records.
11. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held in the writ appeal and clarified in
the clarification petition which is extracted hereunder:
“This application has been preferred by the petitioner / 2nd respondent for
clarification of the order dated 12.11.2002 in W.A.No.1960 of 1999. The
said order reads as follows:
“By this writ appeal, the appellant-management assails the order of
the Learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the Labour Court,
Madurai for fresh adjudication. The Learned Single Judge remanded
the matter on the ground that the Labour Court did not take into
consideration the finding of acquittal recorded by the criminal court.
In our considered view the remand of the matter to the Labour Court
by the Learned Single Judge is just and proper inasmuch as the
finding of acquittal recorded by the Criminal Court would certainly
have a bearing on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. We
do not final any legal infirmity in the order of remand passed by the
Learned Single Judge.
2. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. C.M.P. No.
16469 of 1999 is closed.”
2. From the said order, it is evident that the Learned Single Judge has
remitted the matter to the Labour Court as it failed to take into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
consideration the finding of Honourable acquittal recorded by the Criminal
Court. The Division Bench while reiterating the matter upheld the said
order.
3. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
being specific, no further clarification of such order is required. The Labour
Court is supposed to act in accordance with the order passed by this Court
and conclude the proceedings at an early date. Miscellaneous petition
stands disposed of.”
The Division Bench has directed the Labour Court only to consider the case of
the petitioner based on the acquittal of criminal case. The Labour Court has
marked the Criminal Case acquittal judgment as Ex.W5 and has considered the
case of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that the Labour Court ought to
have dealt with the issue as “preliminary issue”, but has passed final order
thereby by violating natural justice. This Court is of the considered opinion that
the direction of the Division Bench is to consider the case of the petitioner based
on acquittal in the criminal appeal, in such circumstances the Labour Court is not
bound to take it as preliminary issue.
12. In the Criminal Appeal, the Court has held that the section 341
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
ingredients are not attracted to the case on hand and has further held that there is
no evidence that the accused had stopped the General Manager from proceeding
further, but there is evidence that the accused had once slapped the General
Manager on his neck from behind the General Manager. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
“???? ?????????????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????
? ????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????????????
???? ?????????? ???????????????? ?.??.1 ?????
4 ?????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ????????? ?
?? ????????????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????????. ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????
341 ???????????????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???????????, ???? ??????
?.??.
1????? ???? ????????????????? ????????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????. ?.?
?.
1-?? ????????? ????????? ??? ???? ???????????????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????.
????????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????????? ??????
323 ???????? ???????? ????????????? ??? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ??????.
????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ????????
? ????????? ???????? ???????? ??????
341 ????????????????? ??????????????????? ????? ???????????. ???? ????????? ??????????? ???????
???? ???????? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????????????? ??????? ???? ????????????
??? ????????????????? ????? ?????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ????? ????? ????????????
???????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????????."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
13. On perusing the above Criminal Appellant Court judgment, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the Appellant Court has held that the ingredients
of section 341 are not attracted and therefore for this reason had acquitted the
petitioner. For the disciplinary proceedings strict evidence is not necessary and it
is only based on preponderance of probability. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the finding of the criminal court cannot be taken as such
for concluding the disciplinary proceeding. Moreover, the Criminal Court has
only held that the offence alleged is not coming within the ingredients of section
341 and hence there is no infirmity in the order of the Labour Court.
14. The petitioner had attained superannuation and the incident had
happened in the year 1986. At this length of time remanding back the case for
reconsideration is unnecessary. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice this Court is
of the considered opinion that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to
the petitioner and the amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order. With the above said observation, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
petition is disposed of. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 16.11.2022
Internet : Yes
Tmg
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
W.P.(MD)No.7139 of 2015
16.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
