Madras High Court
V.Swaminathan vs The Chairman on 15 September, 2022
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.P. No.32734 of 2004
V.Swaminathan ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Chairman
T.N.E.B. Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai – 600 104. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with
I.D.No.252 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 12.02.2004 and to
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balasubramanian
for M/s.V.Balasubramanian & Associates
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian for R1
R-2 Labour Court
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order made in
I.D.No.252 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 12.02.2004,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
confirming the order of dismissal passed by the respondent on 13.03.1986
on the allegation of misappropriation.
2.Heard Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.P.Subramanian for R1, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of
dismissal was passed without giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity
during the course of the domestic enquiry. According to him, the amount that
have been collected from the customers have to be handed over to the
Assistant Engineer, who have not been proceeded with and the petitioner
alone was singled out. It is his further case that there was no individual
witnesses examined before the Industrial Tribunal to substantiate the charges
leveled against the petitioner and hence sought interference.
4.It is his further case that the Industrial Tribunal had not analysed the
case in proper perspective and had only extracted the portion of the cross-
examination of the petitioner and therefore he sought interference of the
Award passed by the Tribunal. He had also further made a request to atleast
consider the case of the petitioner for pension as he has superannuated as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
early as in the year 2006.
5.Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent submitted that the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in a
proper manner as per the standard procedures laid down in this regard. It is a
case that the petitioner had not produced any evidence whatsoever to
substantiate his claim, that he had handed over the collection to the Assistant
Engineer. It is his further case that the petitioner had collected all the money
that he had to, apart from handing over the amount to the Assistant Engineer
and he has to obtain a receipt. It is also his duty to enter the same in the petty
cash register, that has also not been done by the petitioner, which amounts to
misappropriation of money. He also further pointed out that the petitioner
was imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years
in the year, 1997 for a similar misconduct. Hence, prayed that this Court
may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6.I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the impugned order.
7.The Tribunal has extracted a portion of the cross-examination of the
petitioner in which it is clearly shown that the petitioner had admitted that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
had not obtained any receipt from the Assistant Engineer and that it was his
duty to obtain such a receipt and enter the collection of such cash in the petty
register. In the domestic enquiry, in spite of him being given an opportunity
to cross-examination the witnesses, he had not cross-examined any of them.
That apart, he has also admitted in the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him in the year, 1997, where he was also imposed punishment for a
similar action. The Tribunal, upon consideration of all the above facts, also
relied upon a judgment reported in 2002 (1) LLJ 234, to hold that the order
of dismissal passed by the respondent herein was justified.
8.Having considered the above reasons adduced by the Tribunal, I am
of the considered view that there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in
dismissing and rejecting the relief claimed by the petitioner in I.D.No.252 of
1996.
9.In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
15.09.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking/non-speaking
gba
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
1.The Chairman
T.N.E.B. Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
gba
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32734 of 2004
15.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
