Madras High Court
N.Namachivayam vs The Management on 5 June, 2024
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, V.Sivagnanam
Review Application No.77 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Review Application No.77 of 2015
in W.A.No.1992 of 2012
N.Namachivayam ... Applicant
Vs.
1.The Management,
State Express Transport Corporation T.N.Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Presiding Officer,
II Addl.Labour Court,
Chennai 600 104. ...Respondents
PRAYER:-Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of C.P.C to review the judgment and order dated 12.06.2014
made in W.A.No.1992 of 2012 and allow W.A.No.1992 of 2014.
For Review Applicant : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
For R1 : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss
For R2 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/6
Review Application No.77 of 2015
ORDER
[Order of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.,]
The above Review Application is filed seeking to review the
order dated 12.06.2014 made in W.A.No.1992 of 2012 passed by this
Court.
2. In W.A.No.1992 of 2012, the Division Bench of this court
dismissed the writ appeal filed by the employee and confirmed the order
dated 14.3.2012 made in W.P.No.29483 of 2007 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
3. The Division Bench held that whether the amount is big or
small, the conduct of the person at the relevant point of time assumes
importance and the appellant had admitted his mistake and has further
chosen to offer explanation that it was only a simple and inadvertent
mistake; the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
relied on by the learned Single Judge, laid down the proposition that once
such a charge is serious in nature and found to be proved, the Labour
court cannot exercise its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.77 of 2015
Disputes Act for ordering reinstatement as there is loss of confidence by
the management against the appellant.
4. The Division Bench further referred to decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Punjab
National Bank and another reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4136 and
confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. In the grounds of review application, it is averred that the
applicant/appellant had valid explanation for excess cash available in the
cash bag. Further, no passenger had given any statement to the effect that
the applicant after having collected money, did not issue ticket. The
charge of misappropriation alleged against the applicant had not been
proved or established as there is no evidence available on record to prove
the said charge. Even according to the 1 st respondent/management, the
applicant/appellant had attempted to commit misappropriation and cause
loss to the Corporation, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.77 of 2015
7. The Division Bench of this Court gone into entire facts of the
case and discussed the findings in detail and confirmed the order of the
learned Single Judge. It is clearly pointed out by the Division Bench of
this court that once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee
and the bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment
must be considered to be immune from challenge.
8. We are of the considered view that granting the employee the
relief of reinstatement would be an act of misplaced sympathy. When
there is apprehension in the trustworthiness of reliability of the employee,
whatever grounds taken by the employee-appellant herein would not help
the employee to gain confidence under the same management. Further,
power to review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC can
be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.
9. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. We are of the
considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting review of the order passed by this Court dated 12.06.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.77 of 2015
This court in exercise of review jurisdiction, without sufficient and just
reasons, cannot review its own judgment. This Court finds no merit in
the review application and therefore, the present Review application is
dismissed. No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (V.S.G., J.)
Index : Yes / No 05.06.2024
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order : Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
sk/nvsri
To
1.The Management,
State Express Transport Corporation T.N.Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Presiding Officer,
II Addl.Labour Court,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.77 of 2015
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
sk/nvsri
Review Application No.77 of 2015
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
