Madras High Court
S.Harikumar vs The Presiding Officer on 22 October, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3606
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 30.09.2024
Pronounced on 22.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
S.Harikumar ...Appellant in W.A.No.2960/2021
B.Bharathi ...Appellant in W.A.No.2962/2021
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Management of Greaves Cotton Limited,
Light Engine Unit II,
Plot No.72, SIPCOT, Ranipet. ... Respondents in both Was
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, to set aside the orders passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.8901
of 2013 dated 31.10.2019 and W.P.No.8900 of 2013, dated 31.10.2019.
(in both WAs)
For Appellants : Mr.V.Prakash, Sr. Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
for Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu
For R1 : Court
For R2 : Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Since the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals are inter-
connected, they are heard together and disposed of through this common
judgment.
2.1. Both the appellants herein are workmen under the second
respondent-Management, who were assigned duties in the Engine Testing
Section and Engine Assembly Section, respectively. Through separate
show cause notices, both the appellants were alleged to have committed
sabotage and were placed under suspension.
2.2. According to the Management, while the appellant in
W.A.No.2960 of 2021 is alleged to have wantonly dropped a B8 spring
washer in an engine, resulting in their customer returning the engine back
to the factory, the appellant in W.A.No.2962 of 2021 is alleged to have
wantonly dropped a B6 spring washer between the cylinder heads and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
piston of an engine, which was deducted at the testing stage.
2.3. Not being satisfied with the explanations rendered by both the
appellants, they were subjected to departmental inquiry for the
misconducts under Clauses 16(4) and 16(15) of the Standing Orders
Rules applicable to the Company. The Inquiry Officer, after extending
opportunity to the appellants, had held the charges against them as
proved. To the second show cause notice calling for explanations on the
findings in the inquiry, both the appellants had given their replies. Their
explanations came to be rejected and both of them were imposed with a
punishment of removal from service on 05.10.2009.
2.4. The orders of punishment came to be challenged by the
appellants before the Labour Court, Vellore, in I.D.No.2 of 2011 and
I.D.No.1 of 2011. On 11.04.2012, the Labour Court had passed a
preliminary order, holding that the domestic inquiry was held in a fair and
proper manner. Thereafter, based on the evidences let in the inquiry
proceedings, as well as the evidences before it, separate final awards
came to be passed on 07.08.2012 respectively, rejecting the claim petition
filed by each of these appellants.
2.5. The further challenge to these awards of rejection before a
learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.8901 and 8900 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
came to be dismissed on 31.10.2019, respectively. The orders of the
learned single Judge are assailed in the present Intra-Court Appeals.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants placed
substantial reliance on the ground that the order of the Inquiry Officer
leading to imposition of the punishment, suffers from perversity, which
aspect was not considered by both the Labour Court, as well as the
learned single Judge. He elaborately took us through several portions of
the inquiry proceedings and submitted that most of the findings therein
were based on no evidence and the Inquiry Officer had rendered his final
opinion, based on surmises.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
respondent-Management would submit that then inquiry was conducted
in a fair and proper manner, as appreciated by the Labour Court in its
preliminary order. The learned counsel also drew attention to the inquiry
findings and demonstrated that the decision taken therein was only on the
basis of statements made on behalf of the appellants. Likewise, the
learned single Judge had also appreciated the findings of the Labour
Court, which were rendered on the basis of the evidences before it and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
therefore submitted that there was no perversity in both the awards of the
Labour Court, as well as the orders of the learned single Judge.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective counsels.
6. Before we deal with the submissions made on either side, we
intend to remark on certain settled legal proposition, insofar as it relates
to the appreciation of evidences in a departmental inquiry.
7. The Hon'be Supreme Court has, in a catena of decisions, settled
the legal proposition relating to appreciation of evidences in a
disciplinary proceedings. One such decision is in the case of G.M.Tank
vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, wherein it
was held that in criminal law, the burden of proving is on the prosecution
and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused
“beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. On
the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent, on a finding
recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. This proposition
has been reiterated in several subsequent decisions and the law on such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
appreciation of evidences in a domestic inquiry, stands well settled.
8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants drew our attention
to several passages in the Inquiry Officer's report and submitted that the
findings therein were not based on any evidence at all, but rather the
decision has been arrived at on presumptions and surmises. In order to
appreciate such a statement, we have perused the entire reports of the
Inquiry Officer dated 02.02.2009 and 20.04.2009 respectively.
9. The appellant in W.A.No.2960 of 2021, who was levelled with a
charge that he had dropped a B8 spring washer in an engine supplied to
the customer and thereby created sabotage, had admitted that he alone
was engaged for 40 minutes in the testing division of the particular
engine and that when the engine is in TDC position, the B8 spring washer
in the cavity will not come out.
10. Likewise, the appellant in W.A.No.2962 of 2021, who was
levelled with a charge that he had dropped a B6 spring washer between
the cylinder heads and a piston in an engine, had admitted that he was
assigned duties of installing cylinder heads at the 7th stage of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
conveyor, during his second shift on 04.11.2018. He had further admitted
that if a washer has been put inside the inlet exhaust and when the fly
wheel is turned at the next stage gap setting, there is a possibility of the
engine getting jammed. Placing reliance on the aforesaid testimonies
during the course of inquiry, amongst others, the Inquiry Officer had
come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the appellants
stand proved. Thus, it cannot be said that such a decision was not based
on any evidence at all.
11. The learned senior counsel had pointed out a stray observation
in the inquiry proceedings that the Inquiry Officer had 'presumed' the
damage to the piston in the engine. We do not endorse the said statement.
On the other hand, on a perusal of the statements made in the cross
examination, it has been established that there was a possibility of the
involvement of these appellants to have committed the act of dropping a
spring washer in the engine.
12. The learned single Judge extensively dealt with the findings in
the inquiry and after analysing the entire evidence, had come to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
conclusion that the spring washer could not have been put in the engine
by anybody else, other than the appellants herein. We do not find any
illegality or any other infirmity in the findings.
13. Thus, we do not find any grounds or other reasons to interfere
with the well considered orders of the learned single Judge and
accordingly, both these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
22.10.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
To
The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
W.A.Nos.2960 & 2962 of 2021
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
