Madras High Court
N.Sakthivelu vs The Management Of on 2 April, 2025
W.P. No.3635 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 3635 of 2020
N.Sakthivelu
S/o. Nagusamy,
13/23, Venkatapuram,
Jallipatti Post – 642 112
Udumalaipettai Taluk …Petitioner
Vs.
The Management of
K.328, Chinnakumarapalayam,
Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Credit Society,
Kurichikottai Post,
Udumalaipettai Taluk.
Coimbatore District. …Respondent
Prayer in W.P.
To issue appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and in particular issue a
Writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the
records pertaining the Award dated 05.07.2018 in I.D.No.123/2010 from
the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits, Award
costs.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
W.P. No.3635 of 2020
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Ajoy Khose, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent–Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as "the
Management"). He had been serving in the Society since 1991 and was
last holding the post of Senior Clerk/Cashier from the year 2001.
Pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry, the Management issued an order of
dismissal dated 05.12.2007 (Ex.M15), thereby terminating his services.
Prior to that, a charge memo dated 28.02.2007 (Ex.M1) had been issued
to him, followed by a second show cause notice dated 04.06.2007
(Ex.M12) after the conclusion of the enquiry.
3. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute before the Government Labour Officer at Coimbatore. As the
conciliation efforts failed, the Officer submitted a failure report. Based
on that, the petitioner filed a claim statement dated 05.05.2010 before the
Labour Court at Coimbatore. The dispute was taken on file in I.D. No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
123 of 2010, and notice was issued to the Management. In response, the
Management filed its counter statement dated 10.02.2011. No oral
evidence was adduced before the Labour Court; however, on behalf of
the Management, 15 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits M1 to
M15.
4. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman did not
challenge the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted against him but
limited his submissions to the issue of proportionality of the punishment
and the quantum of back wages. The Labour Court found that, in his
explanations marked as Ex.M7 and Ex.M9, the workman had clearly
admitted to having misappropriated customer funds, which he
subsequently repaid and for which he prepared a receipt. These
documents, Ex.M7 and Ex.M9, amounted to a clear admission of
misconduct and dereliction of duty. The Labour Court further noted that
in response to the second show cause notice (Ex.M13), the workman
submitted a reply (Ex.M14) in which he pleaded guilty, tendered an
apology, and acknowledged his liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,96,856/-
towards the loss of interest sustained by the Society. He also sought time
to comply with the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
5. The Labour Court categorically held that, since the petitioner
had committed serious misconduct by misappropriating substantial funds
of the Management Society, and in view of the resultant loss of
confidence in him by the Management, the punishment of dismissal was
justified. It observed that there was no scope for misplaced sympathy or
leniency in such circumstances. In support of its conclusion, the Labour
Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diwan
Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in (2015) 2
SCC 341, wherein it was held as follows: –
“In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and
another v. Bajrang Lal, this Court, following the
case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v.
Krishnan Behari and others, has opined that in cases
involving corruption there cannot be any other
punishment than dismissal. It has been further held
that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally
uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The
amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is
the act of misappropriation that is relevant. In said
case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent/employee
was awarded punishment of removal from service.
In the present case it is compulsory retirement.
Learned counsel for respondents submitted that on
earlier occasion, appellant was awarded minor
punishment, for his misconduct, regarding
defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty
for the second time. Therefore, in the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
circumstances in view of the law laid down by this
Court, as above, we are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order passed by the High Court.”
6. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said
Award dated 05.07.2018. When the writ petition was taken up for
admission on 14.02.2020, notice was ordered to the respondent.
Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 20.02.2024, it was referred
to the Mediation Centre, and both parties were directed to appear before
it. However, as the mediators were unable to facilitate a settlement, the
matter was returned to this Court. The Mediation Centre communicated
the same through a letter dated 25.06.2024, upon which the case was
placed before this Court for further proceedings.
7.Since the counsel for the petitioner, despite the above developments,
insisted on contesting the case, it becomes necessary to extract the
petitioner’s first explanation dated 04.05.2007 (Ex.M7), wherein he
stated as follows: –
”கற்றச்சாட்ட கறிப்பாைணயில் சட்டக்காட்டப்பட்டள்ள கற்றச்சாட்ட
ொதாடர ்பாக உயர ் அதிகாரிகள் அறிவைரகைள ஏற்ற வங்கியின் நலன்
கரதி நான் ஒப்பதல் வாக்கமலம் ொகாடத்தள்ேளன் . நான் இதில்
எவ்வித ைகயாடலம் நிதி இழப்பம் ஏற்படத்தவில்ைல எனப் பணிவடன்
ொதரிவித்தக் ொகாள்கிேறன். தவற கண்டறிந்தவடன் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட
ைவப்பதாரர ்கைள அணகி உண்ைமநிைலயிைன எடத்தக்கறி
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
ைவப்பதாரர ்கள் வங்கியின் மீத ைவத்தள்ள நம்பகத்தன் ைமயிைன
இழக்காதவாற ொசயல்பட்ட கடன் மற்றம் அதற்கான வட்டயிைனப்
ொபற்ற நாேன வங்கியில் ொசலத்தி இரசீ த தயாரித்தள்ேளன். வங்கியில்
ைவப்பத் ொதாைக இரண்ட ேகாடக்க ேமல் உள்ளதாலம் அதிகமான
ைவப்பதாரர ்கள் ைவப்பக் கடன் கள் ொபற்றள்ளதாலம் இத்தவற
ேநர ்ந்தள்ளத. இதில் எவ்வித ைகயாடலம் இல்ைல. ேமலம்
அதிகாரிகள் சட்டக்காட்டவதற்க மன் ேப என் னால் இத்தவற
கண்டபிடக்கப்பட்ட தக்க நடவடக்ைக எடத்த சம்பந்தப்பட்ட
நபர ்களிடமிரந்த கடன் ொதாைக மற்றம் ைவப்பிைனப் ொபற்ற வங்கியில்
ொசலத்தியள்ேளன் என் பைதப் பணிவடன் சமர ்ப்பித்தக் ொகாள்கிேறன்.
ைவப்ப தாரர ்களின் நலன் கரதியம்ரதியம், வங்கியின் நலன் கரதியம்
நான் ொசயல்பட்ட வந்தள்ேளன் . சில ைவப்பதாரர ்கள் தாங்கள் இட்ட
ைவத்தள்ள ைவப்பத் ொதாைககளின் மீத ைவப்ப பத்திரங்கள்
இல்லாமேலேய கடன் விண்ணப்பம் ொசய்வர ். அவர ்கள் பின் ப ைவப்ப
ரசீ திைன வங்கியில் ொகாடப்பார ்கள் . ைவப்பதாரர ்களக்க வங்கியின்
மீதள்ள நம்பகத்தன் ைம ொகடக்கடாத என் ற நல்ல எண்ணத்தடள்
அவர ்களிடமிரந்த விண்ணப்பக் கடதம் மற்றம் வவச்சர ்கைளப்
ொபற்றக் ொகாண்ட கடன் வழங்கப்படம் . இதனால் சில
ைவப்பதாரர ்களிடம் ரசீ த வாங்காமல் தவறியள்ளத. இதில் எவ்வித
ைகயாடலம் இல்ைல. இத்தவற சட்டக்காட்டப்பட்டவடன் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட
ைவப்பதாரர ்களிடம் அவர ்கள் ொபற்ற ைவப்பக்கடன் ேநர ் ொசய்யாலம்
மழத் ொதாைகயம் திரப்பிக் ொகாடக்கப்பட்டள்ளைதச் சட்டக்காட்ட
ேமற்பட நபர ்களிடமிரந்த கடன் மற்றம் வட்டத் ொதாைகயிைனப் ொபற்ற
நாேன வங்கியில் ொசலத்தி ரசீ த தயாரித்தள்ேளன். நான் வங்கி மற்றம்
அங்ககத்தினர ்கள் நலன் கரதிேய ொசயல்பட்ட வந்தள்ேளன் . இதில்
நான் எவ்வித ைகயாடலம் ொசய்யவில்ைல எனப் பணிவடன்
சமர ்ப்பித்தக் ொகாள்கிேறன்.”
8. It is unnecessary to reproduce the other admissions made by
the petitioner, as they have already been considered and referred to by
the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in The Workmen of M/s. Firestone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. The Management & Others,
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813, to contend that, even after a valid and
proper enquiry by the employer, the Labour Court is empowered under
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to reappreciate the evidence
on record and arrive at independent conclusions. It was further submitted
that the Labour Court may also examine the proportionality of the
punishment imposed.
9. He further referred to a subsequent decision of the Supreme
Court in Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India, reported in (2008)
12 SCC 726, which reiterates the same principle. He placed reliance on
the following passage found in paragraph 20, which reads as under: –
“………
So far the finding of the learned Single Judge appears
to be correct. However, the whole thrust of the
judgment has changed merely because the Industrial
Tribunal had found the inquiry to be fair and proper.
The learned Judge seems to be of the opinion that if
the inquiry is held to be fair and proper, then the
Industrial Tribunal cannot go into the question of
evidence or the quantum of punishment. We are afraid
that is not the correct law. Even if the inquiry is found
to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that
all possible opportunities were given to the delinquent
and the principles of natural justice and fair play were
observed. That does not mean that the findings arrived
at were essentially the correct findings. If the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the
findings could not be supported on the basis of the
evidence given or further comes to the conclusion that
the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate,
the Industrial Tribunal would still be justified in re-
appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the
quantum of punishment. There can be no dispute that
power under Section 11-A has to be exercised
judiciously and the interference is possible only when
the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and
further concludes that punishment imposed by the
Management is highly disproportionate to the degree
of guilt of the workman concerned. Besides, the
Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not
satisfied either with the findings or with the quantum
of punishment and that such reason should not be
fanciful or whimsical but there should be good
reasons.”
10. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain,
reported in AIR 1969 SC 983, to contend that the Labour Court ought to
have held that the findings were perverse and unsupported by legal
evidence. He further relied on the decision in Kuldeep Singh v.
Commissioner of Police & Others, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10, and
submitted that judicial interference is warranted where the findings of a
domestic enquiry are based on no evidence, are perverse, could not have
been arrived at by a reasonable or prudent person, or are influenced by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
external dictates. In such circumstances, it was argued, judicial review is
justified.
11. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries
Corporation Ltd. & Another, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 21, to contend
that, under the law of evidence, the contents of a document must be
proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Mere admission of a
document may amount to admission of its contents, but not of the truth
of those contents. Documents which are not properly produced and
marked in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act cannot be
relied upon by the court. Simply filing a document in court does not
amount to proof of its contents.
12. Finally, he placed reliance on a recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Personnel, Syndicate
Bank & Others v. B.S.N. Prasad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 118, to
contend that the exercise of disciplinary authority is always subject to the
principles of proportionality and fairness. It was submitted that where the
misconduct is serious, yet the penalty of dismissal appears
disproportionately harsh—particularly in light of an otherwise long and
unblemished service record, an admission of error due to work-related
pressure, and the recovery of the financial loss sustained—the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
punishment of dismissal may be substituted with a lesser penalty.
13. However, none of the aforesaid considerations are present in
the case of the petitioner. This is a case where the petitioner has
unequivocally admitted to his misconduct. The fact that he subsequently
made good the loss and submitted to a surcharge order passed by the
Deputy Registrar does not bring his case within the ambit of the
principles laid down in the judgments relied upon. The Labour Court,
while considering the matter, has duly borne in mind the scope of its
powers under Section 11A and has rightly declined to extend any
indulgence in favour of the petitioner.
14. The impugned award warrants no interference. The writ petition
is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
02.04.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
The Presiding Officer,
Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 12:43:56 pm )
