Madras High Court
The Management vs M.D.Ulaganathan on 6 July, 2023
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
1.The Management,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Ltd.,
Pallavan Illam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The General Manager,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Ltd.,
Pallavan Illam,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.D.Ulaganathan
2.The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order
passed in I.D.No.56 of 2012 dated 15.02.2016 on the file of the
second respondent herein and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Chidambaram
For Respondents : Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu for R1
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed
in I.D.No.56 of 2012 dated 15.02.2016 on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same.
2.The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent was
appointed as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation on 27.07.1992.
On 02.01.2008, when the first respondent was the Conductor of the
bus Route No.17M, checking squad boarded the bus and checked the
tickets and it was found that the first respondent was having 68 sold
tickets in his cash bag; stage note was wrongly punched and tickets
and money were not tallied and hence, the first respondent violated
Sections 25(XLi)(c), 25(XLi)(f), 25(XLI) and 25(XIV) of the Certified
Standing Order. Thereafter based on the checking squad's report, the
first respondent was suspended from service on 08.01.2008 and
charge memo was issued to him on 18.02.2008 and enquiry was
conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
3.The further case of the petitioners is that after detailed
enquiry, the first respondent was terminated from service by the
second petitioner on 03.01.2009. Challenging the same, the first
respondent filed W.P.1404 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated
27.01.2009 dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, the first
respondent filed Department Appeal challenging the termination order
and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the first
respondent filed W.P.No.13586 of 2010 and this Court vide order
dated 09.01.2012 dismissed the writ petition and directed the first
respondent to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, the first
respondent raised I.D.No.56 of 2012 before the second respondent,
pursuant to which, the impugned award directing the petitioners to
reinstate the first respondent in service with backwage and all other
consequential monetary benefits, came to be passed. Hence, this writ
petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the first respondent was appointed as Conductor in the petitioner
Corporation on 27.07.1992. On 02.01.2008, when the first
respondent was the Conductor of the bus Route No.17M, checking
squad boarded the bus and checked the tickets and it was found that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
the first respondent was having 68 sold tickets in his cash bag; stage
note was wrongly punched and tickets and money were not tallied.
Thereafter, based on the checking squad's report, the first respondent
was suspended from service on 08.01.2008 and after conducting
detailed enquiry, the first respondent was terminated from service by
the second petitioner on 03.01.2009. However, all these aspects were
not properly considered by the Labour Court and the Labour Court
mechanically passed the impugned order which is not sustainable one.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that on the side of the petitioners, one TH.P.Muthuvel was
examined as M.W.1 before the Labour Court and he has deposed that
the tickets were collected from persons who had travelled from Porur
to Broadway which is contrary to the charge memo according to which,
the first respondent was found in possession of 68 sold tickets in his
cash bag and taking into consideration the above contradiction, the
Labour Court passed the award in favour of the first respondent which
cannot be interfered with. He further submitted that the facts
appreciated by the Labour Court cannot be re-appreciated by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
submitted that the first respondent attained the age of superannuation
during the year 2016.
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7.The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the
first respondent was appointed as Conductor in the petitioner
Corporation on 27.07.1992. On 02.01.2008, when the first respondent
was the Conductor of the bus Route No.17M, checking squad boarded
the bus and checked the tickets and it was found that the first
respondent was having 68 sold tickets in his cash bag; stage note was
wrongly punched and tickets and money were not tallied. Thereafter,
based on the checking squad's report, the first respondent was
suspended from service on 08.01.2008 and after conducting detailed
enquiry, the first respondent was terminated from service by the
second petitioner on 03.01.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent
raised I.D.No.56 of 2012 before the second respondent.
8.Before the Labour Court, the Workman has examined himself
as W.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses W.W.2 and W.W.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
and marked eight exhibits Ex.W1 to Ex.W8. On the side of
Management, one witness was examined as M.W.1 and exhibits Ex.M1
to Ex.M9 have been marked.
9.M.W.1 examined on the side of the Management has deposed
before the Labour Court that the tickets were collected from persons
who travelled from Porur to Broadway which is contrary to the charge
memo, according to which, the first respondent was found in
possession of 68 sold tickets in his cash bag. The said contradiction
was properly considered by the Labour Court and the Labour Court
passed the award in favour of the first respondent. Since the
impugned order does not suffer any perverse, the same cannot be
interfered with by re-appreciating the factual finding rendered by the
Labour Court.
10.The first respondent has attained the age of superannuation
during the year 2016. Hence, there is no question of reinstatement.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have in a catena
of judgments held that a person is not entitled for backwages for the
period when he is not in employment and hence, the first respondent
is not entitled for any backwages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
11.In view of the above, this Court modifies the Award of the
second respondent dated 15.02.2016 passed in I.D.No.56 of 2012 as
follows:
(i)The first respondent is entitled for the all other consequential
monetary benefits including continuity of service except backwages.
(ii)The first respondent is not entitled for any backwages.
(iii)Since the first respondent has attained the age of
superannuation during the year 2016, there is no question of
reinstatement. Hence, the petitioner is directed to settle the benefits
within a period of 8 weeks, if not already settled.
12.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
06.07.2023
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
City Civil Court Annexure Building,
High Court Compound,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19383 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
