Madras High Court
M/S.Nvh India Auto Parts Private ... vs G.Purushothaman on 13 November, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.2684 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No. 2684 of 2024
M/s.NVH India Auto Parts Private Limited,
Plot No.B-67 & 68, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irungattukotai,
Sriperumbudur - 602 117,
Kancheepuram District,
Represented by its Manager - HR
Mr.K.Manikandan ...Appellant
Vs.
G.Purushothaman ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 05.04.2024 made in W.P.No. 17083 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Sudalaikannu
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2684 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The management is on appeal, aggrieved by the order of the learned
single Judge, confirming the award of the Labour Court which directed
reinstatement of the workman with backwages.
2. The management terminated the workman without conducting any
enquiry on 28.02.2014. The contention of the management is that the
respondent is not a workman but, he is working in a Supervisory capacity.
The said contention of the management was rejected by the Labour Court,
upon consideration of the evidence available on record. The evidence
placed by the management in the form of three out passes which were
signed by the workman as a Supervisor was rejected as insufficient. The
Labour Court, upon analysis of the evidence which was placed before it, had
come to the conclusion that the respondent is a workman and he is entitled
to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes
Act.
3. The Writ Court also concurred with the findings of the Labour
Court after assessing the credibility of the evidence that has been placed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the Labour Court. The Writ Court has also concluded that in the
light of the findings of the Labour Court, which are based on evidence that
have been placed before it, cannot be construed as perverse and there is no
ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.
4. We have heard Mr.Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar ,learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant apart from reiterating the
submissions that have been made before the Writ Court would contend that
the Labour Court and the Writ Court erred in rejecting that the documents
that were filed by the management as insufficient. This argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant invites us to reassess the evidence that has
been placed before the Labour Court and come to a different conclusion.
We are afraid that we cannot do that, unless we come to a conclusion that
the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. The jurisdiction of this Court
under 226 is well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, it has
been clearly held that unless the evidence of the Labour Court is termed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perverse or based on no evidence, the Writ Court cannot interfere under
Article 226.
6. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant is
unable to make out that the award of the Labour Court is either perverse or
it is based on no evidence. We cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come
to a different conclusion, even if such conclusion is possible. Once the Writ
Court finds that the conclusion of the Labour Court is plausible on the
evidence that is available before it, interference with the award is not
permitted. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.)
13.11.2024
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index: No
Speaking
Neutral Citation : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
KKN
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
