Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 12 October, 2023
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015
The Management,
Arul Anandar College,
Karumathur,
Madurai District – 625 514. .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Buildings,
Melur Road,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.M.Rajendran (Died) ..Respondents/Respondents
3.R.Lakshmikantham
4.R.Ganesh
5.R.Amutha
6.R.Murugesan ..Respondents
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
(R-3 to R-6 are impleaded as LRs of the deceased second respondent vide
Court order dated 18.07.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.6301 of 2021 in
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
allow the Appeal; to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1412 of
2010 dated 31.10.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
For R-3 to R-5 : M/s.B.Sargunam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The present Writ Appeal arises out of the common order dated
31.10.2014 passed in W.P.(MD).No.6527 of 2009 and W.P.(MD).No.1412 of
2010.
2. W.P.(MD).No.6527 of 2009 was instituted to direct the
Management of Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai to pay
backwages and other terminal benefits to the writ petitioner as directed by
the Labour Court, Madurai in the Award dated 02.04.2009 passed in
I.D.No.579 of 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
3. W.P.(MD).No.1412 of 2010 was instituted by the Management of
Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai challenging the validity of the
award passed by the Labour Court dated 02.04.2009 in I.D.No.579 of 1989.
4. The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the Management of Arul
Anandar College against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1412 of 2010.
The learned Single Judge passed a common order dated 31.10.2014 in both
the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).No.6527 of 2009 and W.P.(MD).No.1412 of
2010. However, the Management has not chosen to prefer any appeal
against W.P.(MD).No.6527 of 2009, which was instituted by the deceased
employee to implement the award of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No.579
of 1989.
5. The second respondent workman was appointed as Head Clerk in
the appellant College on 01.08.1970. He was awarded selection grade in the
post of Head Clerk on completion of ten years of service. Charge memos
were issued against the deceased employee, setting out certain allegations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
Admittedly, domestic enquiry was conducted and the deceased employee
participated in the domestic enquiry partly and thereafter, remained absent.
6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, which was accepted by
the employer and the major penalty of termination from service was
imposed. Challenging the order of dismissal, a reference was sought for,
which was declined by the Government in G.O.No.1547 dated 13.07.1984.
The Government Order was challenged in W.P.No.9959 of 1985. The said
Writ Petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madras on 08.08.1989 and the following observations were made:
“4. It has been more than once held that when a dispute
is one which would come within the ambit of the Industrial
Disputes Act and which could be agitated in a civil court, the
Industrial Disputes Act, being an appeal enactment dealing
with special kind of disputes the reliefs and remedies will have
to be worked out under the said enactment alone excepting
under certain circumstances where injunction etc could be
granted as held in 1975 SC 2238. Therefore, any reference to
the disputes which has arisen between the management and
non-teaching staff, in view of the decision in CHRISTIAN
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
ANOTHER -V- CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE
(VELLORE) ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1988 I LLJ 263),
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply. Even
then, learned counsel Mr.Martin would bring to the notice of
this court a slightly different approach made in the decision
dealing with teachers in SUNDRAMBAL -V- GOVERNMENT
OF GOA, DAMAH AND DIS (AIR 1988 Sc 1700) pertaining to
this aspect, but the present matter comes squarely under
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES
UNION AND ANOTHER-V-CHRISTIAN MEDI-CAL
COLLEGE (VELLOR) ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1988 I
LLJ 263). The dispute which has arisen is one which will have
to be resolved by applying the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.”
7. Consequent to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Madras, a reference was made in G.O.Ms.No.1773 dated
04.10.1989 by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the reference,
I.D.No.579 of 1989 was taken on file by the Labour Court, Madurai and
issues were adjudicated. The Labour Court after conducting trial passed an
award in favour of the deceased employee granting the relief of
reinstatement with backwages along with attendant benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
8. The award was challenged in W.P.(MD).No.1412 of 2010.
Simultaneously, the deceased employee, M.Rajendran filed W.P.(MD).
No.6527 of 2009 seeking implementation of the award. Both the Writ
Petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and the issues
raised between the parties were considered.
9. The findings of the learned Single Judge in the order impugned
reveals that the appellant Management failed to establish and produce
evidence to prove the charges against the deceased employee. In this
regard, in paragraph 22 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
made a categorical finding as follows:
“22. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above
decision, this Court finds that the Management had not
tendered any evidence, much less, acceptable evidence, so as to
prove their stand that the first respondent was not a "workman"
as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and in view of the
same, the contention of the Management falls to the ground.”
The learned Single Judge elaborately considered the issues raised between
the parties and also the findings of the Labour Court, which were made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
based on the documents and evidences filed by the Management and the
deceased employee.
10. We have independently gone through the nature of the allegations
framed against the deceased employee in the charge memorandums. The
allegations are not relating to misappropriation, fraud or corruption. Per
contra, all the allegations are relating to certain routine lapses alleged to
have been committed by the deceased employee during the course of his
employment. Such flimsy allegations do not warrant major penalty. More
so, both the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court
have taken concurrent view in respect of the charges as well as the failure
on the part of the Management to prove the charges framed against the
deceased employee before the Labour Court. Thus, we are of the opinion
that the alleged charges framed against the deceased employee are minor in
nature, more so, such charges, even if proved, do not warrant imposition of
major penalty of termination from service. In any event, the punishment of
termination from service is not in proportionate with the gravity of the
allegations and therefore, we form an opinion that the charges are, if proved
also, the punishment of termination from service will be disproportionate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
11. Mighty Management could able to protract the litigation for more
than 42 years. On every stage, petitions were filed to drag on the
proceedings, which caused prejudice to the interest of the workman, who
died even before reaching finality in the litigations. Considering the long
pendency of the litigation and the plight of the family of the deceased
employee, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed in the Writ
Petition.
12. In view of the fact that concurrent views are taken both by the
Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge and on our independent
consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal fails and consequently, the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2014 passed in W.P.(MD).
No.1412 of 2010 stands confirmed. In respect of the order passed in W.P.
(MD).No.6527 of 2009, the appellant Management is directed to implement
the order within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
12.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
District Court Buildings,
Melur Road,
Madurai – 625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
W.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
