Madras High Court
V.Rajagopal vs The Presiding Officer on 9 June, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
V.Rajagopal ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai. ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent
2.The Management,
Madura Sugars, Pandiarajapuram,
Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District,
Through its Chief Executive
3.Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation,
690, Anna Salai,
Chennai through its Chairman ... Respondents 2 & 3 /
Writ Petitioners
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order dated 05.07.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.6090 of
2010 on the file of this Court.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.C.Kishore
For 1st Respondent : Labour Court
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.C.Karthikeyan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ
Court dated 05.07.2016 made in W.P.(MD) No.6090 of 2010.
2. The appellant was a workman. He raised an industrial dispute
under 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the respondent
Management as he was terminated from service by the Management.
3. The Labour Court has taken the said Industrial Dispute as
I.D.No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, and decided the
same by the award dated 29.04.2009, where under, the Labour Court having
found that the order of dismissal or removal made by the Management
against the workman was not justified, however, by the time, the
Management Mill since had been closed and all the employees had been laid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
off by paying some compensation, the Labour Court in its award directed
the Management to give equal compensation to the appellant / workman
also, by calculating his service till the closure of the Mill as if he has
worked on par with the other employees.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the Management filed W.P.(MD) No.
6090 of 2010 and the workman aggrieved over the denial of back wages
filed W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2011.
5. These two Writ Petitions were heard together and decided by
the learned Judge by a common order dated 05.07.2016, under which, the
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Management i.e.,
W.P.(MD) No.6090 of 2010 and dismissing the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.(MD)
No.364 of 2011 filed by the workman.
6. Challenging the said order dated 05.07.2016, the present Writ
Appeal has been filed by the workman / respondent in W.P.(MD) No.6090
of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
7. Heard Mr.C.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/workman, who would submit that, the only reason that was found
out by the learned Judge, in allowing the Writ Petitionl filed by the
respondent management and rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the
workman was that, the Labour Court without giving any specific finding on
the preliminary issue with regard to the domestic enquiry conducted by the
Management, whether was in consonance with the principles of natural
justice or not, had proceeded to decide the issue on merits by appreciating
or re-appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides and
rendered its decision by way of the award. Therefore, that approach of the
Labour Court was found fault with by the learned Judge and only on that
reason, the learned judge instead of remitting the matter to the Labour Court
for reconsideration and to give a preliminary finding with regard to the
domostic enquiry has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Management in
toto by rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the workman.
8. That approach of the learned Judge is erroneous and therefore,
on the said ground, the said judgment which is impugned herein of the writ
Court is liable to be interfered with, he contended.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
9. On the contrary, Mr.C.Karthikeyan, the learned representing
counsel appearing for the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
Management would submit that the learned counsel on record, who
appeared for the respondent Management is no more and on whose behalf
when he made attempts to contact the respondent management, there has
been no communication and no instructions and it seems that since the Mill
has been closed long back, the Management seems to have not responded,
therefore, what is the present position and what instructions they would give
to the counsel to conduct the case is not known and that is the position of
the counsel, therefore, he contended that it is for the Court to take a decision
based on the records.
10. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
11. We have gone through the order impugned passed by the
learned Judge. In the entire order, the learned Judge found fault with the
Labour Court with regard to the approach made in this regard that, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
deciding as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management
was in consonance with the principles of natural justice or not and without
giving any such finding including the preliminary finding or the finding
along with the Labour Court award, the Labour Court since has proceeded
to take up the main I.D. by re-appreciating the evidence and rendered the
award, that ground was mainly taken by the learned Judge as a reason for
setting aside the award.
12. Insofar as setting aside the award on the ground that the
Labour Court has not given any finding with regard to the status of the
domestic enquiry is concerned, we are in agreement with the learned Judge.
However, for the said purpose, normally, the Court would remit the matter
back to the Labour Court to render a finding as a preliminary finding with
regard to the status of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management
as to whether it is in consonance with the principles of natural justice or not.
Only, if a negative finding is given on that issue, the Labour Court would
normally proceed to the merits of the I.D. and without which they cannot
normally decide the merits of the industrial dispute raised before them.
Therefore, in that context, the matter could have been remanded back to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
Labour judge, instead of allowing the Writ Petition filed by the
Management and rejecting the Writ Petition of the employee, by thus, the
Industrial Dispute raised by the employee against the management has not
been so far decided on merits.
13. In view of this approach, in the considered opinion of this
Court, it is erroneous and hence, we feel that the impugned order passed by
the learned judge is liable to be interfered with.
14. In the result, the following orders are passed in this Writ
Appeal:-
That the order impugned is modified to the extent that, the Writ
Petition im W.P.(MD) No.6090 of 2010 stood allowed and W.P.(MD) No.
364 of 2011 dismissed. To that extent, it can be approved, but at the same
time, thereafter, the non-remand back of the matter to the Labour Court, in
the considered opinion of this Court, since is erroneous, we feel that the
issue can be directed to be reconsidered by the Labour Court, for which, we
remand I.D. No.33 of 1996 before the Labour Court concerned to render a
finding as to the preliminary finding with regard to the domestic enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
conduced by the Management as to whether it is in consonance with the
principles of natural justice and depending upon the findings to be given by
the Labour Court, the further course of action in accordance with the
provision of I.D. Act can be taken by the Labour Court. Since it is a long
pending matter, preference may be given by the Labour Court for disposal
of the I.D., preferably within three months period from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
15. With these directions, this Writ Appeal is allowed partly in the
term as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.)
09.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
SJ
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
SJ
W.A.(MD)No.601 of 2018
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
