Madras High Court
The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 22 November, 2023
W.P.No.30629 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.P.No.30629 of 2012
The Management of
TTK Prestige Limited,
Plot No.82 & 85 SIPCOT Indl. Complex,
Hosur 635 126, rep. by its
Director & Secretary. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2.M.Satishkumar … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1 st
respondent in I.D.No.106 of 2007 and quash its award dated 03.07.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raghunathan for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.
For R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records of the 1 st
respondent in I.D.No.106 of 2007 and quash the award dated 03.07.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The petitioner, the Management will be referred to as the petitioner
and the employee as the employee.
3.The petitioner is the manufacturer of kitchenware items and has a
unit in SIPCOT Industrial Complex. The petitioner's factory is governed by
the Factories Act and it has got certified standing orders. The employee
joined the petitioner's company as a Trainee in the year 1986 and he was
confirmed in April, 1989. While so, the employee was issued with a charge
sheet cum show cause notice on 22.11.2005 for misconduct of habitual
absence for 34 days between 01.11.2004 and 31.10.2005. The employer did
not offer any explanation to the charge sheet and therefore notice of enquiry
was sent to him and in the enquiry proceedings the employee admitted the
charges. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the employee
were proved. Thereafter after giving reasonable opportunities to the
employee orders were passed on 24.07.2006 dismissing him from service.
The employee therefore raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the
dismissal order. The Labour Court allowed the claim petition by directing
the petitioner to reinstate the employee with continuity of service along with
backwages. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
4.The employee in his claim petition stated that he sustained accident
on 06.11.1987 during the course of his employment and inspite of the
grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner without any
sympathy burdened him with heavy work. The employee stated that due to
the injuries sustained by him he was forced to take leave for treatment and
after treatment when he reported for work on 10.08.2006, the petitioner
refused entry to him in the factory. The employee even thereafter made
several requests to the petitioner to give him work, but the petitioner did not
yield to the requests. It was the employee's further case that without any
proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service and so he was constrained to
raise the dispute against the dismissal order.
5.The Labour Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record
found that the termination of the employee was proper and valid. The Labour
Court further found that the quantum of punishment imposed was
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and therefore modified the
punishment of dismissal from service to one of reinstatement, but without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
backwages.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Labour Court having found that the termination was valid and the enquiry
proceedings were conducted in a fair and proper manner erred in interfering
with the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel submitted that the
Labour Court on mere sympathy over turned the punishment imposed by the
petitioner and the same was not permissible in law. The learned counsel
relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala
Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A.Unnikrishnan and another reported in
(2006) 13 SCC 619, in support of his case.
7.The learned counsel for the employee on the other hand submitted
that the Labour Court had properly appreciated the entire evidence on record
and considering that the misconduct of unauthorised absence was for 34 days
only interfered with the quantum of punishment which cannot be faulted.
Hence he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8.I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
materials on record.
9.It is seen that the employee was served with the charge sheet on
22.11.2005 for the misconduct of habitual absence and negligence to work.
The employee failed to give any reply to the charge sheet inspite of service of
the same. Enquiry proceedings were commenced on 20.02.2006 and notice
of enquiry was given to the employee though initially he did not appear for
the hearing he later attended the enquiry held on 14.03.2006 and participated
in the enquiry. Before the Enquiry Officer, the employee admitted all the
charges levelled against him in the charge sheet and the same was recorded
by the Enquiry Officer. The employee signed the enquiry proceedings on
14.03.2006 in acknowledgment of his presence and participation in the
enquiry. The enquiry concluded on 14.03.2006 itself, as the employee
admitted all the charges levelled against him. In pursuance of the enquiry
officer's report a second show cause notice was sent to the employee on
13.06.2006, but the same was returned with endorsement “ADDRESSEE IS
NOT PRESENT AT COMPANY – RETURNED TO SENDER” and “PARTY
REFUSED – RETURNED TO SENDER”. Thereafter the dismissal order
was passed on 24.07.2006. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
entire evidence on record returned a finding that the termination of service of
the employee was legal and valid as it was passed after a fair enquiry. The
Labour Court interfered with the quantum of punishment on the ground that
as the misconduct was for unauthorised absence and as the number of days of
absence was also only 34 days, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal
from service was disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and hence the
highest punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted.
10.In my view, the Labour Court erred in interfering with the quantum
of punishment. It is seen from the dismissal order that the petitioner on 20
earlier occasions, for the very same misconduct of unauthorised absence was
imposed lesser punishment. It is seen that the employee was a habitual
absentee and even the Labour Court found that the employee was in the habit
of attending work at his whims and fancies and not as per the petitioner's
requirement. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the Labour Court in the light of its own
findings on fact ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment
imposed by the petitioner on mere sympathy. In this regard, the Judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd.
Vs. A.Unnikrishnan and another reported in (2006) 13 SCC 619 is relied
on. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
“10.We are inclined to agree with these
submissions. In recent times, there is an increasing
evidence of this, perhaps well mean but wholly
unsustainable tendency towards a denudation of the
legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs
granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and
tenable within the framework of the law and should not
incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the
Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy,
generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to
maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the
legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate
logically from the legal findings and the judicial results
must be seen to be principled and supportable on those
findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and
misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the process will eventually lead to mutually
irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process
of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.”
11.Hence on the facts of the case and the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, I am of the view that the award of the Labour Court is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, Writ
Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
22.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
ah
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.MALA, J.
ah
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
