Madras High Court
M.Satish Kumar vs The Management Of Ttk Prestige Limited on 24 September, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.2819 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.2819 of 2024
M.Satish Kumar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Management of TTK Prestige Limited,
Rep. by its Director,
Plot No.82 & 85, SIPCOT Indl Complex,
Hosur – 635 126.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside an order passed in Writ Petition No.30629 of 2012 dated
22.11.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
For R1 : Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For R2 : Labour Court
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
1.1. When the appellant was dismissed from service by the first
respondent/Management on 24.07.2006, on the basis of some proven charges
in the departmental inquiry, he had challenged the same before the Labour
Court in I.D.No.106 of 2007. The Labour Court, though had found the
termination of the appellant as proper and valid, had observed that the
punishment was disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and
accordingly, had passed an Award on 03.07.2012, setting aside the
punishment of dismissal from service and ordered for reinstatement with
continuity of service, but without backwages.
1.2. When the Management had challenged the Award of the Labour
Court before a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30629 of 2012, the same was
allowed and the Award of the Labour Court was set aside through an order
dated 22.11.2023, which order is assailed by the workman in this Intra-Court
Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned
Single Judge had not properly appreciated the past service records of the
appellant, which all relates to unauthorized absence and late reporting for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
duties and that each of 20 delinquencies are spread over once in an year only
and hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given much credence
to the past records.
3. The learned counsel for the first respondent/Management would
submit that the appellant was a habitual absentee and had been punished on
20 earlier occasions, for similar charges of unauthorized absence. It is his
further submission that in the present departmental action, the appellant had
admitted to all the charges levelled against him and thus, in view of his past
records of service, he ought not to have been ordered to be reinstated back
into service by the Labour Court, which aspect, the learned Single Judge had
rightly appreciated.
4. The charge of misconduct against the appellant was for unauthorized
absence for 34 days between 01.11.2004 and 31.10.2005. During the course
of inquiry, the appellant had admitted to the charges levelled against him.
The Labour Court however, on misconception of the facts, had recorded that
the appellant was not absent for more than 10 days in a month and therefore,
his past records have been exaggerated to brand him as a 'habitual absentee'
and accordingly, had extended sympathy to him, by ordering for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages.
5. We had perused the past service records of the appellant, which
discloses that the appellant was punished on 20 occasions between the year
1987-1997, for similar charges of unauthorized absence. In each of these
years, he had either abstained from work unauthorizedly or had reported late
for duty several times. Following are the details of such unauthorized
absence and late reporting to work:-
S.No. Year of delinquency Number of times
1. 1987 Absent: 8 times,
Late: 7 times
2. 1988 Absent: 9 times
3. 1989 Absent: 17 times
Late: 21 times
4. 1990 Absent: 40 times
Late: 26 times
5. 1991 Absent: 54 times
Late: 67 times
6. 1992 Absent: 67 times
Late: 65 times
7. 1993 Absent: 11 times
Late: 58 times
8. 1994 Absent: Nil
Late: 127 times
9. 1995 Absent: 53 times
Late: 55 times
10. 1996 Absent: 100 times
Late: 54 times
11. 1997 Absent: 79 times
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Late: Nil
Apart from the above unauthorized absence/late reporting for duty, the
appellant had also absented himself on 126 occasions during the period
between November 2004 and October 2005, on account of sickness. Thus, it
is seen that between November 2004 and October 2005, the appellant had
absented himself from duty for more number of days that he had actually
worked. For all the aforesaid delinquencies, the Management had imposed
several punishments on him.
6. The present delinquency also relates to unauthorized absence of 34
days, to which charge, he had conceded during the inquiry. When the charge
of an unauthorized absence stands 'proved' against the appellant, owing to his
own admission and by taking into account his past service records, the
appellant appears to be a habitual absentee, who does not deserve sympathy.
In this background, the Labour Court had misplaced its sympathy on the
appellant by ordering for reinstatement.
7. The learned Single Judge had taken note of the past record of the
appellant and had found that he was a habitual absentee, who was attending
works at his whims and fancies and not as per the Management's requirement
and therefore, found fault with the decision of the Labour Court in having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interfering with the quantum of punishment on mere sympathetic ground.
The learned Single Judge had also placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd., Vs.
A.Unnikrishnan & another' reported in '(2006) 13 SCC 619', wherein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had frowned upon the tendency of the Courts in
extending sympathy without legal reasoning and legitimacy for such
conclusion.
8. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2023 and thus, we do not find any merits in
this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
24.09.2024
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
Sni
To
1.The Director,
Management of TTK Prestige Limited,
Plot No.82 & 85, SIPCOT Indl Complex,
Hosur – 635 126.
2.The Presiding Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Sni
24.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
