Madras High Court
All India Radio And Television vs G.Vimala on 20 September, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3418
W.A.No.451 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 09.09.2024
Pronounced on 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.451 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.4239 of 2023
All India Radio and Television, National Film
Development Corporation Employees
Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Television Center Annexe,
Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 005.
Now at: 56, Anugraha Apartment,
F3, 1st Floor, Singanna Chetty Street,
Chintradripet, Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.G.Vimala
2.Presiding Officer,
Third Additional Labour Court,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 29.06.2022 in W.P.No.15563 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.A.No.451 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.R.Viduthalai,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.L.N. Pragasam
For R1 : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar
For R2 : Labour Court
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
The first respondent herein, while working as a Clerk under the
appellant/Society, was levelled with three charges under a Charge Memo
dated 14.02.2002. The substance of the charges was that she reported late
for duty; that she had indulged in dual employment by taking up a part-time
employment elsewhere; and that she had misappropriated a sum of
Rs.5,000/- by altering a receipt of a M.T.Loan. During the course of
inquiry, all the three charges were held to be proved and after issuance of a
second show cause notice, she was imposed with a punishment of
termination from service on 15.09.2003. The first respondent had
challenged the punishment before the Labour Court by raising an Industrial
Dispute in I.D.No.192 of 2005 and by an Award dated 30.04.2010, the
punishment of termination from service came to be confirmed. When the
first respondent had challenged the Award of the Labour Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15563 of 2010, a learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition
by setting aside the Award and directed the appellant herein/Society to
reinstate her with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The
order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in this Intra Court Appeal by
the Society.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had
predominantly raised a ground that the learned Single Judge had, at length,
re-appreciated the statements and evidences produced before the Labour
Court, which re-appreciation is impermissible in law, in view of several
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the cases in 'B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & others' reported in '(1995) 6 SCC 749'
and 'Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India & others' reported in '(2020) 9
SCC 471', wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the
Constitutional Courts, while exercising their powers of judicial review,
cannot assume the role of an Appellate Authority and that their jurisdiction
is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors
leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
With such a submission, the learned Senior Counsel took us into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detailed order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.06.2022 and claimed
that the Writ Court had dealt with the Labour Court's proceedings like an
Appellate Authority.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that a perusal of the order impugned in the Writ Appeal would
clearly indicate that this is not a case of re-appreciation of the evidences
before the Labour Court, but on the other hand, the learned Single Judge
had only re-examined the statements and evidences and had come to the
conclusion that there was no evidence or other basis for the Inquiry Officer
to hold the charges as 'proved' and thus, had interfered with the
consequential Award. He also submitted that the first respondent was
terminated from service in the year 2003 and more than 20 years have
lapsed, causing serious prejudice to her.
4. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made
by the respective counsels and have perused the records before us.
5. The only ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant is that the learned Single Judge had assumed the role of an
Appellate Authority and had re-appreciated the evidences, which is
impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while in
exercise of the powers of judicial review. There cannot be any second
opinion on such a submission and as a matter of fact, this ratio has been laid
down in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including B.C.
Chaturvedi and Pravin Kumar's case (supra), as cited by the learned
Senior Counsel.
6. The factual issue that arises for consideration in this Intra-Court
Appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge had exercised the powers
of judicial review by re-appreciating the evidences or not?
7. With this aspect in mind, we had gone through the entire order
passed in the Writ Petition. Though the learned Single Judge had
elaborately discussed the case in hand and had extracted certain portions of
the depositions in the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the Award of the
Labour Court, we could see that ultimately what the learned Single Judge
had exercised is, to ascertain as to whether there are any materials in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disciplinary proceedings, as well as before the Labour Court.
8. Insofar as the first charge of reporting late to duty is concerned, the
learned Single Judge, after looking into the materials in the disciplinary
proceedings, had observed that an isolated incident of reporting late to duty,
without prior permission, does not by itself warrant punishment of
termination and cannot be treated as a major offence. Insofar as the second
charge of allegation that the first respondent had taken dual employment is
concerned, the learned Single Judge had looked into the materials before the
Labour Court and had come to the conclusion that there was no legal
evidence to support the charge, except for a series of assumptions, which are
contrary to the evidences and thereby, held the second charge to be
unsustainable. Likewise, insofar as the third charge of misappropriation is
concerned, the learned Single Judge had once again looked into the
evidences in the inquiry proceedings and held that there was no material at
all to hold that the first respondent had indulged in misappropriation.
9. Now that we have found that the learned Single Judge had neither
assumed the role of the Appellate Authority, nor had re-appreciated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidences in both the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the Award of the
Labour Court and furthermore, when the learned Single Judge had
interfered with the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the Labour Court's
Award, by establishing that there was no legal evidence or other evidences
before the Labour Court to sustain the charges, we do not find any infirmity
in the said order.
10. It is now brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the first
respondent that the first respondent herein had reached the age of
superannuation on 29.02.2024. As such, she would be entitled for all the
service and monetary benefits, from the date of her dismissal, till the date of
reaching the age of superannuation.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi and Pravin
Kumar's case (supra), had set forth certain parameters to be exercised by
the Constitutional Courts under judicial review. In both these decisions, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, it would be permissible for the
Constitutional Courts to interfere with an order which is not based on any
legal evidence. Likewise, it has also been held therein that, when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the levelled charges,
the Constitutional Courts will be well within the powers to interfere with
such a punishment. In the light of these legal ratios, we do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge dated
29.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.15563 of 2010.
12. For all the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the appellant/Society shall pass
appropriate orders to the effect that the first respondent herein had
notionally retired from service on 29.02.2024 and thereby, disburse all her
service and monetary benefits, along with all other attendant benefits,
including her retirement/pensionary benefits, within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
20.09.2024
Index: Yes
Speaking
Internet: Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Presiding Officer,
Third Additional Labour Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Sni
Pre-delivery judgment made in
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
