Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2023
W.P.No.264 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.264 of 2018
And
W.M.P.No.321 of 2018
The Management
Pothanur Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Pothanur, Paramathi Velur,
Namakkal District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
2.M.Kanagasabapathi ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the award passed by the
first respondent in I.D.No.33 of 2010 dated 25.07.2017, quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Prem Kumar for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.264 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the award passed by the first
respondent in I.D.No.33 of 2010 dated 25.07.2017 and to quash the
same.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was
the Assistant Secretary and Secretary incharge of the petitioner
society and during his tenure, he caused huge loss to the society and
hence, he was issued with a charge memo dated 18.02.1999.
Thereafter enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted
his report on 30.01.2003, based on which, second show cause notice
dated 02.03.2007 was served on the second respondent by enclosing
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the second
respondent was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the second
respondent raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.33 of 2010 before the
first respondent and the first respondent passed award dated
25.07.2017 directing the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent
in service with continuity of service, backwages and all attendant
benefits. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.264 of 2018
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that prior to passing of the award, the petitioner lodged criminal
prosecution as against the second respondent and the same was
adjudicated before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathy in
C.C.No.45 of 2000 and the learned Judicial Magistrate on 27.09.2017
passed an order of conviction as against which the second respondent
preferred appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal in
C.A.No.61 of 2017 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge on
23.08.2018 held that the prosecution proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and since the misappropriated amount was paid to
the society, learned Principal Sessions Judge set aside the trial Court
judgment in respect of punishment and confirmed the fine amount
imposed by the trial Court. When such being the position, the award
passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that admittedly, charge was not proved before
the Enquiry Officer, even then, the Enquiry Officer drawn proven
minute as against the second respondent. The Labour Court after
elaborately considering the factual aspects, passed award in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.264 of 2018
the second respondent. Hence, the impugned award warrants no
interference.
5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6.Admittedly, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings as
well as criminal proceedings as against the second respondent. The
disciplinary proceedings ended in termination of service and the same
was set aside by the Labour Court. The criminal proceedings ended in
conviction and the same was upheld by the lower Appellate Court.
What is the requirement in the departmental proceedings is
prepondrance of probabilities and what is the requirement in the
criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case,
the criminal Court itself arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution
and petitioner department proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, the award of the Labour Court is perverse and liable to be
interfered with.
7.The award passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.264 of 2018
to reinstate the second respondent in service with continuity of
service, backwages and all attendant benefits is not sustainable one in
view of the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower
Appellate Court in the criminal proceedings.
8.In view of the above, the award passed by the first respondent
in I.D.No.33 of 2010, dated 25.07.2017 is set aside. The writ petition
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.08.2023
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.264 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.264 of 2018
And
W.M.P.No.321 of 2018
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
