Madras High Court
M/S.Mrf Corp. Limited vs B.Joseph Vincent on 22 August, 2023
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1385 of 2023
and C.M.P.13845 of 2023
M/s.MRF Corp. Limited,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Arun Mammen,
V Floor, Tarapore Towers, 826,
Anna Salai, Triplicane,
Chennai – 600 002.
...Appellant
Vs.
B.Joseph Vincent ...Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of
Civil Procedure Code of 1908, against the order passed by the IV Additional
City Civil Court, dated 28.04.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.422
of 2023.
_____
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.Vijayan for
King and Partridge
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Aasim Shehazd for
BFS Legal
JUDGMENT
The above appeal has been filed challenging the Order passed by the
learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.3 of 2023
in O.S.No.422 of 2023, restraining the appellant/MRF Corp. Limited, from
conducting domestic enquiry against the respondent herein.
2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances:
(a) The respondent was employed under the appellant company for
about 20 years. Due to personal reasons, he had sent a resignation letter on
31.03.2022. Since the appellant had not settled his Superannuation dues
the respondent filed a Suit in O.S.No.422 of 2023 for recovery of
Rs.53,45,834.85, and also prayed for a direction for issuance of relieving
letter, experience certificate and so on.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
(b) The appellant/MRF Corp. Limited in the meantime issued a notice
on 12.01.2023, calling upon the respondent to offer his explanation for the
misconduct said to have been committed by the respondent which was
allegedly prejudicial to the interest of the company.
(c) The respondent thereafter filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.422 of
2023, praying for an injunction restraining the appellant from conducting the
domestic enquiry. It is the case of the respondent that the enquiry is motivated
and was only to wreak vengeance; that the enquiry is only to counter the
Suit filed by the respondent; that the appellant had accepted the resignation of
the respondent and the Employer-Employee relationship did not exist and
therefore, the enquiry cannot be conducted; that the Show cause notice also
listed out irregularities, which had allegedly taken place a few years before
the date of the resignation, the appellant's vindictive action extended to filing
of a frivolous complaint; that the respondent therefore, filed the Anticipatory
Bail, before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7282 of 2023; and that this Court had
observed that custodial interrogation would not be required and granted
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
Anticipatory Bail. The learned counsel stated before the Trial Court that all
the above facts would show that an enquiry sought to be initiated is malafide
and should not to be allowed.
(d) The appellant herein filed a counter before the Trial Court and
submitted that the resignation of the respondent herein was not accepted; that
the appellant had been receiving several complaints relating to malpractices
that had caused huge loss to the company; that therefore, they had not paid
the Superannuation dues to the respondent; that they were in the process of
collecting evidence; that after doing so, they had issued the Show cause
notice on 12.01.2023 and hence, it cannot be said that the enquiry is
motivated or malafide.
(e) The learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, found
after hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties that if the appellant is
aggrieved by the fact that the respondent had caused huge loss to the
appellant, it was open to them to file a counter claim; that the appellant had
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
not initiated any action till the respondent had submitted his resignation in
March 2022; that the enquiry sought to be conducted is only an eye wash and
therefore, the respondent had established prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury, warranting an order of interim injunction
as prayed for.
(f) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant
appeal.
3. Mr.Vijayan, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the
submissions made before the Trial Court. In addition the learned counsel
submitted that if ultimately the appellant succeeds in the Suit, the evidence
collected would not be available to establish the misconduct in the domestic
enquiry; that if it is the case of the respondent that no Employer-Employee
Relationship existed, it is open to the respondent to ignore the enquiry and
contend that the same is malafide in the pending Suit; that if the appellant is
prevented from conducting an enquiry, irreparable injury would be caused to
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
the appellant and not to the respondent as observed by the learned trial Judge.
The learned counsel therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of
injunction.
4. Mr.K.M. Aasim Sheshazd, the learned counsel for the respondent,
also reiterated the submissions made before the Trial Court. The learned
counsel further submitted that the appellant initiated a domestic enquiry only
after the Suit was filed by the respondent; that the respondent had also filed
frivolous FIR; that the chargers are vague; and that the reading of the Show
cause notice would reveal that the enquiry is vindictive and motivated. The
learned counsel further submitted that since a Criminal case is also pending,
if the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue, his defence in the
Criminal case would be prejudiced, and therefore, the action which is
intended of counter the Suit claim should not be allowed to continue; and
that the Trial Judge was justified in passing an order of injunction.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent.
6. The admitted facts are the respondent was employed under the
appellant for more than twenty (20) years; that he had submitted his
resignation on 31.03.2022; that one of the Directors to whom the respondent
was reporting had accepted his resignation, which was sent through
WhatsApp and e-mail; that the appellant had not issued any relieving letter
and also not paid any alleged dues to the respondent, that the prayer in the
Suit also confirms the fact that no relieving letter was issued by the appellant.
7. The primary objection of the respondent for the domestic enquiry is
that it is a farce; and that the respondent is not an employee of the appellant
any longer. The learned counsel for the appellant, per contra, submitted that
all these issues can be decided in the Suit; that if the appellant is not allowed
to conduct an enquiry, the evidence so far collected by them would not be
available for them to conduct an enquiry, if they ultimately succeed in the
Suit.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
8. This Court is of the view that there cannot be an order restraining the
conduct of enquiry on the premise that the enquiry is farce and vindictive.
It is desirable that the issues as to whether the enquiry has been fairly
conducted, as to whether the enquiry was necessary and as to whether the
Employer-Employee relationship was severed are adjudicated in the Suit.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant can be permitted to
conduct the enquiry.
9. However, in order to ensure fairness, it is necessary to issue certain
directions as regards the conduct of the enquiry. The Learned counsel for the
appellant, submitted that they appointed a lawyer to conduct an enquiry to
ensure fairness though it is not mandated. The learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that some other person may be appointed to conduct the
enquiry. Therefore, this Court is of the view that enquiry may be conducted
by a neutral person in view of the allegations made by the parties against each
other. The learned counsels on either side agreed for appointment of
Mr. D. Abdullah, Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. Thus in the interest of both
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
the parties, the following directions can be issued in the instant appeal instead
of passing an order of injunction restraining the appellant from conducting
any enquiry:-
(a) Mr.D.Abdullah, Advocate (Mob.No.9884016380) is appointed as
an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer shall conduct a de nova enquiry.
(b) The appellant is restrained from taking any action against the
respondent, in the event of the Enquiry Officer holding the respondent is
guilty of the charges pending disposal of the suit. Further action by the
appellant would depend upon the result of the suit.
(c) It is open to the respondent to raise all contentions in the Suit
including that the Employer-Employee relationship does not exist and the
enquiry itself is not necessary. The Trial Court shall decide the issue as to
whether the enquiry is justified and all other incidental issues relating to the
enquiry after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties in
accordance with law.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
10. The learned Trial Judge shall expedite the trial and complete it as
expeditiously as possible.
11. With the above observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
22.08.2023
dk
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1.The IV Additional Judge,
IV Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1385 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J
dk
C.M.A.No.1385 of 2023
and C.M.P.13845 of 2023
22.08.2023
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
