Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 7 August, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 24.06.2024
Pronounced on : 07.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
And
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.Nos.620 and 621 of 2020
and CMP.Nos.8583, 8584 and 8587 of 2020
The Management
Represented by its General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited
12, Ramakrishna Road
Salem-636 007. …Appellant
[in both Writ Appeals]
Versus
1. The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Salem ... 1st respondent in WA.No.620/2020 & 2nd
respondent in WA.No.621/2020
2. P.Raja ... 2nd respondent in WA.No.620/2020 &
1st respondent in WA.No.621/2020
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
prays to set aside the order dated 30.08.2019 in W.P.Nos.8997 & 19155 of 2016
passed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for Mr.R.Babu
For R2 : Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Nedunchezhian
For R1 : Labour Court
COMMON JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU, J.
The above writ appeals are filed by the Management-Transport
Corporation as against the common order passed in W.P.Nos.8997 and 19155 of
2016, dated 30.08.2019.
.
2. The second respondent-driver approached the Labour court in
I.D.No.40 of 2013, questioning the factual flaws and the provisions attracting
Rule 19(1)(k) of the Standing Orders of the TNSTC, Salem, as the main
allegation levelled against him was that he had prevented the Branch Manager
from discharging his duties.
3. The Labour court passed the award interfering with the order of
dismissal dated 02.08.2010 holding that the charges are not established in its
entirety and directed the management to reinstate the workman into service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
within a period of three months from the date of Award with continuity of
service and other monetary benefits with 25% of back wages.
4. Questioning the denial of 75% of backwages, the workman filed
W.P.No.19155/2016 and challenging the award, the Management filed
W.P.No.8997 of 2016.
5. The learned Single Judge held that since charges are held to be not
proved and the management has also not established that the workman is
gainfully employed, the Award in respect of depriving of 75% of backwages is
bad and therefore, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The learned Single Judge
confirmed the findings of the Labour court that the enquiry conducted was not
fair and proper.
6. Now the Management has filed the present writ appeals challenging
the common order dated 30.08.2019 on the ground that the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge was without considering the oral evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
of the management witness who has clearly stated that the workman had
entered the room of the Branch Manager and shouted threatening him with dire
consequences. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that
the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, is not applicable to the facts of this
case and therefore, applying the said decision, granting the remaining 75%
backwages to the workman, is not correct.
nd
7. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the 2 respondent-workman,
would submit that the learned Single Judge has carefully perused the records
and held that domestic enquiry is bad and charges are held to be not proved.
nd
The 2 respondent had attained superannuation on 31.03.2016 itself; the award
was modified by the learned Single Judge as one of reinstatement with full
backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits from the
date of his dismissal viz., 02.08.2010 and all the benefits upto the date of
superannuation to be extended to the workman within 45 days. Further the
learned Single Judge observed that management is expected to pay his monthly
th
pension from October 2019 onwards regularly on or before 5 of every month
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
and arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of his
superannuation, shall be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
8. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the second respondent
has not been given any benefits till date including his PF, Gratuity etc and he
has not been given the monthly pension even till date from the date of his
superannuation i.e., on 31.03.2016.
9. The learned Senior counsel would argue that for no fault of the second
respondent, he was deprived of his legal rights and the Management filed the
appeals and dragging on the proceedings without giving single benefit.
10. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully.
11. Before proceeding further, two important aspects required to be noted
in the present writ appeal filed by the Stated owned Transport Corporation.
Firstly, the charges levelled against the second respondent were frivolous and
inquiry was held in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and thereby,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
the order of dismissal passed by the Management was set aside by the award of
the Labour court. The learned Single Judge also confirmed the findings and
granted the remaining 75% backwages with modification in respect of award
and directed for reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service and all
other consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal viz., 02.08.2010 and
that all the benefits upto the date of superannuation to be extended to the
workman within 45 days and that the workman would be entitled to pensionary
benefits, if he is otherwise entitled to.
12. As far as the above findings and direction of the learned Single Judge,
we find that the said findings and directions are passed by applying the
principles enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in cases where
domestic enquiry is held to be bad and the dismissal order made by the
management would be invalid. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single
Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be held to be
erroneous. Accordingly, the said part of the order is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
13. Secondly, the learned Single Judge pointed out in paragraph 16 as
follows:-
“... since the workman had already retired from service, the
Management is expected to pay his monthly pension from October
th
2019 onwards regularly on or before 5 of every month and the arrears
of pension with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of his
superannuation, shall be paid within a period of 45 days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the amount is
not released within the time stipulated supra, it will carry interest @
12% to be recovered from the personal fund of the Officials,
responsible for release of the amount to the Workman. It is further
directed that the Management shall furnish the name of the Officials
with their designation, who failed to release the amount in time to the
Registrar General of this Court, within a period of 30 days from the
date of expiry of the time mentioned supra, so as to enable him to bring
the same to the notice of this court thereafter. “
The above observation, in our considered view, is slightly excessive. Therefore,
we find that the said directions need to be interfered as the Management is the
State owned Transport Corporation and having the obligation to serve justice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
and protect legal rights of its employees. Accordingly, the above portion of the
impugned order is set aside. What is expected herein is to respect the statute and
comply with the direction of this court within the time stipulated and not to
promote or maximize the criminal action and recovery proceedings as the same
would result in dragging the case further. We hope the appellant understand the
tenor of the order and pay the monetary benefits entitled to the second
respondent including pension without any further delay.
14. In the result, the writ appeals are partly allowed on the terms stated
supra. The appellant-Transport Corporation shall pay the monetary benefits
including PF, Gratuity and pension to the second respondent within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B.,J,] [P.D.B.,J,]
07 .08.2024
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
nvsri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
To
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited
12, Ramakrishna Road
Salem-636 007.
2.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Salem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 620 & 621 of 2020
J. NISHA BANU, J,
and
P. DHANABAL, J,
nvsri
Judgment in
W.A.Nos.620 and 621 of 2020
07.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
