Madras High Court
S.Ravikumar vs The President on 23 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.1920 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.1920 of 2024
S.Ravikumar ... Appellant
Vs.
The President,
(Previously Special Officer),
Washermanpet Co-operative Stores Ltd., XNC-589,
Old No. 91/2, New No.248,
P.A.N. Rajarathinam Road,
Washermanpet,
Chennai – 600 021.
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the impugned order of the learned Judge dated 18.12.2023 in W.P. No.
25992 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr. Rajaram
For Respondent : Mr. G.Saravanabhavan
*****
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
The instant Writ Appeal arising out of the order of the learned Single
Judge in W.P. No. 25992 of 2019 dated 18.12.2023.
2. The short fact to be decided in the instant writ appeal is whether the
order of the Labour Court, having no findings regarding on the fairness of the
domestic enquiry, is proper or not.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/workman
would vehemently contend that though they have raised serious disputes
regarding the fairness of the enquiry, the Labour Court, while disposing of
the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 325 of 2012 on 24.01.2017, did not frame
any issue as to the fairness of the enquiry and failed to decide such material
aspect. It is further contended that, when serious disputes were raised
regarding the fairness of the enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Labour Court
to render finding on the same. It was also contended that the learned single
Judge has also not considered that material aspect.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Management
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would vehemently contend that, the workman raised industrial dispute
against the order of termination passed on the basis of the charge of
misappropriation, and that the workman has deliberately delayed the
proceedings, and that though the industrial dispute was raised during 2012,
they dragged on the matter for over five years, are ultimately got it disposed
of only during 2017. The learned counsel for the respondent/Management
further contended that they have followed all due procedures and natural
justice. Therefore, contended that the finding rendered by the Labour Court is
liable to be confirmed.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6. The entire issue centers around the point, as to whether the Labour
Court has to render finding regarding the fairness of enquiry, when the same
is under challenge. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P.P.
Mundhe (Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 1969, dated 20.08.1975). The relevant
paragraph is paragraph 19, and the same reads as follows:-
“19. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that
when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court
should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the
domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural
justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective
enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no
difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy
between the parties that question must be decided as a
preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it
will be for the management to decide whether it will
adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it
chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be
thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the
issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no
justification for any party to stall the final adjudication
of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its
decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the
matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final
award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to
refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these
observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay
in industrial adjudication.”
As per the above Full Bench decision, when the fairness of the enquiry, is
under challenge, it is mandatory for the Labour Court to address the said
issue. However, in the instant case, the Labour Court admittedly did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
render any finding with regard to the fairness of the enquiry, which could
seriously prejudice the workman, apart from contravening the settled legal
principle. Therefore, since the material issue remains undecided, it would be
appropriate to set aside the award and remit the matter to the Labour Court to
dispose of the industrial dispute afresh in accordance with the law. It is
pertinent to mention here that the learned Single Judge did not not consider
this aspect.
7. Accordingly, the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai
passed in I.D. No. 325 of 2012 and the order of the learned single Judge, are
set aside and the Industrial Dispute is remitted back to the II Additional
Labour Court, Chennai to dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law.
Considering the long pendency of the issue, we expect the Labour Court,
Chennai to conclude the industrial dispute as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
8. In the result, this Writ Appeal is ordered. No costs.
[M.S.R., J.] [C.K., J.]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.09.2024
kv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
The President,
(Previously Special Officer),
Washermanpet Co-operative Stores Ltd., XNC-589,
Old No. 91/2, New No.248,
P.A.N. Rajarathinam Road,
Washermanpet,
Chennai – 600 021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S. RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
23.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
