Madras High Court
B. Ameer Ahamed vs 2 The Presiding Officer on 4 August, 2023
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. Nos.1100 and 1104 of 2013
B. Ameer Ahamed Appellant in WA No.1100/2013
N. Santhanam
Secretary
Thanjai Mavatta Podu Thozhilalar Sangam
No.6, Kish Raja Veethi
Thanjavur - 1 Appellant in WA No.1104/2013
v
1 The Management
Arignar Anna Sugar Mills
Kurungulam
Thanjavur District
2 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore Respondents in both WAs
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
common order dated 08.10.2012 passed in W.P. Nos.27164 of 2003 and 28327 of
2005.
For appellants in Mr. T. Ramkumar
both appeals for Mr. R. Subramanian
For R1 in
both appeals No appearance
R2 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis both appeals Court
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
Inasmuch as the instant writ appeals emanate from a common order passed
by a Single Bench in two writ petitions, they are considered and decided by this
common judgment.
2 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellants will be
adverted to by their name and the second and third respondents will be adverted to
as the Management and the Labour Court, respectively.
3 The facts in brief read thus:
3.1 Ameer Ahamed, the appellant in W.A. No.1100 of 2013, joined as
Pump Attender in the services of the Management in May 1977. In view of his
frequent absenteeism, charges were framed against him and owing to the said
charges being proved against him in the domestic enquiry, he was demoted from
the post of Pump Attender to the post of Seasonal Mazdoor vide order dated
09.11.1994.
3.2 Thereagainst, Ameer Ahamed raised an industrial dispute being
I.D.No.38 of 2000, through the Union, viz., Thanjai Mavatta Podu Thozhilalar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
Sangam, represented by Santhanam, Secretary, which was referred for
adjudication vide G.O. Ms.No.1157, Labour & Employment Department dated
23.12.1999 and the reference proceeds thus:
“Whether the demotion of Thiru. B. Ameer
Ahamed by Management from Pump Attender to the post
of Masthur on 09.11.1994 is correct and to what relief is
the petitioner entitled?”
3.3 The Labour Court, vide award dated 13.03.2002, accepting the
contention of the Management that Ameer Ahamed has not proved that the Union
is not competent to raise the dispute and that there was no evidence to show that
the dispute has the support of substantial section of the workmen, held that the
dispute referred by the Government is not an industrial dispute.
3.4 Further, taking note of the explanation to the second show cause
notice which was marked as Ex.M.15, wherein, the workman has admitted the
charges as well as the past records, more so, Exs.M.6 to M.8, the Labour Court
held that the the Management's order demoting Ameer Ahamed from the post of
Pump Attender to the post of Mazdoor is justified.
3.5 As regards applicability of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the Labour Court held that the said provision is not applicable to the
facts of the case, as it is a case of demotion which does not attract any of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
subjects referred to in the said provision for the purpose of reducing the
punishment.
3.6 Thus, in short, the industrial dispute filed by the Union was dismissed
by the Labour Court.
3.7 Prior to the raising of the aforesaid industrial dispute through the
Union represented by the Secretary, Ameer Ahamed had raised an industrial
dispute under Section 2-A(1) before the Labour Officer, Thanjavur, contending
that he was orally terminated from service, and upon the said authority filing a
failure report, the said industrial dispute was taken on file as I.D. No.24 of 1998
by the Labour Court.
3.8 Before the Labour Court, the Management contended that Ameer
Ahamed was not at all terminated from service. Further, according to the
Management, they never prevented Ameer Ahamed from attending duty, but, on
the contrary, he absented himself from 04.12.1995 and in spite of their
communication dated 10.03.1997 asking him to come and report for work, he
never turned up for work.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
3.9 The Labour Court, after analysing the evidence on record, vide award
dated 16.02.2004, finding that the Management never prevented the workman
from doing his work and that it is only the workman who remained
unauthorizedly absent and that he further failed to prove that he was on medical
leave, held that he is not entitled to reinstatement, much less with backwages and
continuity of service.
3.10 Thus, there are two awards in these cases. The first award is dated
13.03.2002 passed by the Labour Court dismissing I.D. No.38 of 2000 filed by
the Secretary of the Sangam on behalf of Ameer Ahamed. The second award is
dated 16.02.2004 passed by the Labour Court dismissing I.D. No.24 of 1998
preferred by Ameer Ahamed seeking reinstatement.
3.11 While the Secretary of the Sangam filed W.P. No.27164 of 2003
challenging the award dated 13.03.2002 passed in I.D. No.38 of 2000, Ameer
Ahamed filed W.P.No.28327 of 2005 challenging the award dated 16.02.2004
passed in I.D.No.24 of 1998.
3.12 As stated in the opening paragraph, the Single Bench took up both
the writ petitions together and by a common order dated 08.10.2012, dismissed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
the writ petition filed by the Management by concurring with the reasoning of the
Labour Court that only as against an order of termination or dismissal, can
Section 11-A, ibid., be invoked and not against an order of demotion and also
dismissed the writ petition filed by the workman on the finding that the
Management did not prevent him from attending duty and also by taking due
notice of the slew of notices issued by the Management informing him to join
duty without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him
3.13 Challenging the order passed in W.P. No.27164 of 2003, while the
Secretary of the Sangam has preferred W.A. No.1104 of 2013, Ameer Ahamed
has preferred W.A. No.1100 of 2013 challenging the order passed in W.P.
No.28327 of 2005.
4 From a perusal of the records, it is evident that the workman
absented himself very frequently in various spells, charge memos were issued to
him and not satisfied with his explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in
which, due opportunity was afforded to him. To be noted, the Enquiry Officer has
held the charges to be proved as the workman did not attend the enquiry at all.
Albeit the fact that all the proceedings pertaining to enquiry were completed, the
Management did not pass any order terminating / dismissing the workman. Ergo,
it can safely be held that the workman's contention that he was verbally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
terminated by the Management is only a smokescreen created by him for the
purpose of approaching the Labour Court.
5 In view of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the common order
passed by the Single Bench.
As a sequitur, both the writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
Costs made easy.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
04.08.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2013
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Cuddalore
W.A. Nos.1100 and 1104 of 2013
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
