Madras High Court
R.Kanniappan vs The Presiding Officer on 2 January, 2024
W.P.No.16361 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.P.No.16361 of 2018
R.Kanniappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Management of MRF Limited,
Thirutani Road,
Arakkonam – 631 003. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection
with the award pronounced by the 1st respondent, Principal Labour Court,
Vellore in I.D.No.216 of 2003 dated 02.02.2012 and quash the same and
further direct the 2nd respondent viz the Management of MRF Limited,
Arakkonam to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages,
continuity of service with all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16361 of 2018
For R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.M.Vijayan for
M/s. King & Partridge
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records in connection with the
award pronounced by the 1st respondent, Principal Labour Court, Vellore in
I.D.No.216 of 2003 dated 02.02.2012 and quash the same and further direct
the 2nd respondent viz the Management of MRF Limited, Arakkonam to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits.
2.The workman will be referred to as the petitioner and the
Management will be referred to as the respondent.
3.The petitioner joined as an apprentice in the respondent company,
which is engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps. The petitioner
was engaged as a tyre builder in April 1989 and he was placed under
probation with effect from 02.04.1993 to 01.10.1993. After the completion of
the probation period he was confirmed on 02.10.1993. The petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suspended from service for a period of 15 days with effect from 12.09.2000
and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 14.03.2001 for
misconduct of unauthorized absence for a period of 133 days from September
2000 to February 2001. The petitioner was issued with another charge memo
on 10.09.2001 for unauthorized absence from March 2001 to September
2001 for a period of 139 days. The petitioner submitted his explanation on
18.09.2001 and as the said explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, the
petitioner was terminated from service on 26.11.2001. The petitioner stated
that after the period of suspension he reported for duty in the first shift on
29.09.2000 but he was prevented by the security guard at the gate from
entering the respondent's premises. The petitioner therefore stated that
because the respondent denied entry to the petitioner, he was not able to
report for duty and therefore the order of termination by the respondent was
illegal and liable to be setaside. The petitioner therefore challenged the
termination order by raising the Industrial Dispute.
4.The case of the respondent on the other hand was that the
performance of the petitioner right from the beginning was totally
unsatisfactory. The petitioner was always irregular in attendance during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of his employment and in spite of several warnings he continued to be
irregular. The petitioner was therefore suspended for his chronic
unauthorized absence and other misconducts. The petitioner remained
unauthorisedly absent from March 2001 to September 2001 for a period of
139 days for which he was issued a show cause notice cum suspension letter
dated 10.09.2001. As the explanation given by the petitioner was found to be
unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted and in pursuance of the
adverse report of the enquiry officer the petitioner was terminated from
service on 26.11.2001.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Labour Court ought to have seen that the petitioner was prevented from
entering the respondent's premises and therefore the respondent's charge that
the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence was unsustainable. As far
as the punishment is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the punishment of the termination from service was
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct viz., unauthorized absence of
139 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted
that the Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record
factually found that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The learned
counsel further submitted that the Labour Court found that in spite of several
warnings on earlier occasions the petitioner continued with the same
misconduct of unauthorised absence and so it held that the dismissal order
was valid.
8.I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the entire
materials placed on record.
9.It is seen from the award of the Labour Court that the Labour Court
has appreciated the voluminous documentary evidences filed by both sides
and has given cogent reasons for finding that the petitioner was a habitual
absentee and that the contention of the petitioner that he was prevented by the
respondent company from entering the company was not proved by him. The
Labour Court on an appreciation of the evidence found that the past record of
the petitioner clearly proved that he was a habitual absentee and therefore it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
could not be said that the punishment of termination from service was not
justified.
10.In my view the Labour Court's findings on fact cannot be re-
appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless
and until the findings of the fact are found to be perverse and based on no
evidence. In so far as the quantam of punishment is concerned, I am of the
view that the habitual absence amounts to violation of discipline and in the
light of the facts of the present case where it is found that the petitioner had a
history of unauthorized absence, the punishment imposed by the
Management cannot be interfered with. In this regard the Judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (122) FLR 578 and 2008 (116) FLR
1139 are noteworthy.
11.One more aspect that was highlighted by the respondent's counsel is
that, though the award was passed in the year 2012, the petitioner filed the
writ petition after a lapse of 6 years in 2018. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed even on the ground
of delay and latches. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.733 of 2017 which was confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.519 of 2021. In the aforesaid Judgment while
confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Division Bench
following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. T.T.Murali
Babu reported in 2014 (4) SCC 108, held that Constitutional Courts cannot,
without adequate reasons, try to help the person who approached the Court
belatedly. In the light of the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that the writ
petition should fail on the ground of delay and latches also. I find no merits
in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
12.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
02.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
ah
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Management of MRF Limited,
Thirutani Road,
Arakkonam – 631 003.
N.MALA, J.
ah
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
