Madras High Court
V.Srinivasan vs The Presiding Officer Of The on 6 July, 2023
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
V.Srinivasan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer of the
Additional Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram (Division II) Ltd.,
Rangapuram,
Vellore – 632 009. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 28.06.2021 made in W.P.No.29499 of 2010 and
consequently, to set aside the termination order dated 20.01.2003 and direct
the 2nd respondent Management to treat the appellant as in service after
awarding minor punishment and treat him as retired from service, after
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
attaining the age of superannuation and pay all the service benefits,
backwages including pension.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajaram
R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.M.Aswin
for Mr.G.Saravanakumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)
The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2021
made in W.P.No.29499 of 2010.
2.It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he studied upto 8th
Std. and could not join 9th Std. and continue his education due to poverty of
his parents. The appellant registered his name in the Employment Exchange
in the year 1994. At the time of registration, he produced the Transfer
Certificate issued by his School, which shows that the appellant has
completed his 8th Std. Since the appellant got Driving Licence and has
registered his name in the Employment Exchange for the post of Driver, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
Employment Exchange sponsored the appellant's name in the year 1996 to
the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation. The appellant was thereafter
appointed as Driver in the year 1996 on temporary basis and later, he was
made permanent in the year 2000.
3.Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated
27.07.2001 on the ground that the appellant has produced fake Transfer
Certificate. Though the appellant denied the charge in his reply, it is not
disputed that the 2nd respondent conducted domestic enquiry and found that
the appellant is guilty of the charge. Therefore, after getting a report from
the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation dismissed the
appellant from service by order dated 20.01.2003.
4.The appellant raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.273 of 2003
before the Additional Labour Court, Vellore. The Labour Court held that the
domestic enquiry held by the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation was null
and void, however, the Management was permitted to lead evidence afresh.
After holding that the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation has proved the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
charges against the appellant, I.D.No.273 of 2003 was dismissed by the
Labour Court.
5.Challenging the Award of Labour Court in I.D.No.273 of 2003, the
appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.29499 of 2010. Learned Single
Judge of this Court, after going through the entire evidence, found that the
Award of the Labour Court is perfectly in order.
6.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
writ petition, the above Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner.
7.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
appellant was not responsible for the fake certificate and the appellant
cannot be charged with any irregularity merely because the certificate
produced by him was held to be one not issued by School concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no educational
qualification is prescribed for the post of Driver at the time when he joined
the service and that therefore, it is not necessary for the appellant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
fabricate or concoct any document. Learned counsel then submitted that
few other Drivers who were charged for similar delinquencies were not given
major punishment and therefore, the appellant has been discriminated.
8.This Court is unable to appreciate the first contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the Labour Court has
found that the appellant is responsible for the fake certificate. The evidence
of the Headmistress of the School was considered by the Labour Court to
hold that the certificate produced by the appellant was not issued by the
School. The Headmistress of the School has given evidence before the
Labour Court to the effect that, as per the School records, the Admission
Number found in the Transfer Certificate was given to one Jamshed Basha
who left the School on 20.03.1976 after doing his 11 th Std. The Labour
Court further found that, in the certificate produced by the appellant which
is marked as Ex.M3, the Admission Number had been printed, whereas, in
the Transfer Certificates issued by the concerned School, the Admission
Number is written in Black Ink by hand. The witness has specifically
spoken to the fact that the Admission Numbers cannot be printed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
Transfer Certificate. It is also found that the seal of the School affixed in
Ex.M3 produced by the appellant is entirely different from the seal of the
School affixed in Ex.M17 issued by the School. All the documents produced
before the Labour Court were considered fairly in the light of pleadings and
oral evidence of witnesses. The learned Single Judge was unable to find any
error of jurisdiction or perversity in the findings of the Labour Court. This
Court has also gone through the evidence and finds no reason to interfere
with any of the findings. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the reasons given by the Labour Court for fixing responsibility
on the appellant is not correct, cannot be appreciated by this Court. When
the appellant has produced a certificate, it is for the appellant to prove the
same by examining proper witnesses to dislodge the evidence of
Headmistress of the School.
9.The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the appellant is found to
have produced fake certificate. The Labour Court has also found that the
certificate produced by the appellant was to prove the age of appellant as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
well as the qualification and that therefore, the appellant would not have got
employment without the certificate.
10.The third submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the petitioner has been discriminated, cannot be countenanced. The Labour
Court has also considered this issue and found that the appellant has
compared himself with employees of different cadre, i.e., Helpers, where
educational qualification is not stipulated. The same yardstick cannot be
applied to the appellant.
11.In view of the findings of the Labour Court and the fact that the
appellant is unable to substantiate any of his arguments advanced before us,
this Court finds no merit in this Appeal. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
06.07.2023
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram (Division II) Ltd.,
Rangapuram,
Vellore – 632 009.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
mkn
W.A.No.3145 of 2021
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
