Madras High Court
K. Naresh vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2023
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A. No. 809 of 2023
K. Naresh ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
2. Executive Director,
Bharat Heavy Electricals,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 014. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 32506 of 2015.
For Appellant :: Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents :: Mr.Anand Gopalan for
M/s.T.S. Gopalan &Co
for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1\6
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The present appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
23.10.2019 passed in W.P. No. 32506 of 2015.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as DR Artisan
(Temporary Cadre) in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and he was
appointed in the said post with effect from 05.02.2009 by office order dated
17.02.2009. On successful completion of his temporary service on daily
rated basis, he was appointed on consolidated wages by order dated
24.09.2009. When the appellant/writ petitioner was working on cosolidated
salary as a temporary employee, charge sheet dated 30.10.2010 was issued
stating that the experience certificate produced by the appellant/writ
petitioner employee, which was claimed to be issued by M/s V.K.N
Enterprises was not a genuine one and the signatory of the certificate was
also not an authorised person of the firm to issue such a certificate. The
appellant/writ petitioner submitted his explanation, which was found to be
not satisfactory, resulting in a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding that the charges were proved, based on which
the appellant was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 18.10.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2\6
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
3. Challenging his dismissal, the appellant/writ petitioner raised an
industrial dispute, which was taken on file by the Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court as I.D. No. 77 of 2013. The Labour Court found that during
enquiry proceedings, the employee had admitted and even produced a
document showing that he had actually worked not under M/s.V.K.N.
Enterprises but was working with a Contractor of the said Enterprises.
Therefore, when the experience certificate produced by the employee
purported to be that of M/s. V.K.N. Enterprises was found to be not
genuine, which was also proved by the employee's own admission, by award
dated 25.08.2014, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute
confirming the order of dismissal. Challenging the same, the employee filed
the writ petition, which also came to be rejected by the order under
challenge. Hence, the present intra court appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5. From a perusal of the award of the Labour Court, it is seen that
the Labour Court has rendered a categorical finding that M/s. V.K.N
Enterprises did not issue any experience certificate to the appellant/employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3\6
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
on the basis of which the employee had claimed relaxation in age for getting
appointment with the 2nd respondent Management. The Labour Court further
observed that during enquiry proceedings, by the employee's own document,
it was evident that he had actually worked not directly under M/s.V.K.N.
Enterprises but was working with a Contractor of M/s.V.K.N. Enterprises,
namely Arivalan Contracts The relevant portion of the award of the Labour
Court read hereunder:
“11.....The Enquiry Officer has taken into account the fact that the
petitioner has submitted before him that he has worked on sub-
contract of M/s. VKN Enterprises. The Enquiry Officer has referred
to a document produced by the petitioner indicating that he has
actually worked with one Arivalan Contracts which was the
Contractor of M/s. VKN Enterprises. .........
12. ...........During the enquiry proceedings the petitioner has
admitted and even produced a document showing that he has
actually worked not directly under VKN Enterprises but was
working with a Contractor of VKN Enterprises only. However,
there is no reference to this in Ext.M8 at all. If the petitioner was
actually working under some other concern, it was not proper on his
part to furnish an experience certificate purported to be that of VKN
Enterprises putting forth a claim that he was working with M/s VKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4\6
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
Enterprises as its direct employee. From the very admission given by
the petitioner, it issen that the certificate is a false one. Ext.M13 is
the reply from M/s. VKN Enterpsies stating that they did not issue
the certificate in question. In view of the admission of the petitioner
that he did not work with VKN Enterprises but under another
establishment, the non-examination of the authority who gave
Ext.M13 letter is not of any consequence. Even otherwise, by the
admission of the petitioner, it is proved that the certificate is not
genuine.”
6. Though it was contended on behalf of the appellant that no false
certificate was produced and that the appellant/employee had revealed the
fact that he was employed with a contractor of M/s.V.K.N. Enterprises, but
the experience certificate was signed by an officer of M/s. V.K.N.
Enterprises, the same was refuted by the Management stating that the
officer, who signed the certificate was not an authorised signatory of
M/s. V.K.N. Enterprises and it was a fake certificate. Further, Ex.M13, a
letter written by the Manager of M/s.V.K.N Enterprises would reveal that
they did not issue the certificate in question. The Labour Court has rendered
a categorical finding that when the employee was actually working in some
other concern, it was not proper on his part to furnish a certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5\6
W.A.No. 809 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
purported to have been issued by M/s. V.K.N Enterprises. When the Labour
Court has rendered a finding of fact that the experience certificate produced
by the appellant was not a genuine one based on evidence, in the light of the
judgment dated 28.03.2023 of this Court in W.A. No. 962 of 2022 (The
Chief General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and another V.
G. Anbukili), we are not inclined to accept the case of the appellant and the
award of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge is
confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 16.06.2023
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
W.A. No 809 of 2023
2. Executive Director,
Bharat Heavy Electricals,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tiruchirapalli – 620 014.
6\6
