Madras High Court
R.Rajkumar vs The Management Of Hinduja Foundries ... on 30 April, 2025
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 12.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No.709 of 2023
and
W.M.P. No. 21620 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 644 of 2023
R.Rajkumar
Son of N.Ramachandran,
Door No.9/3C, Perumal Koil Street,
Ernavoor, Chennai. … Petitioner in W.P.No.17438 of 2020
and Respondent in W.P.No.709 of 2023
The Management of
Ashok Leyland Ltd (Foundry Division)
Rep. by its Senior Manager HR,
Ennore, Chennai – 600 057. … Petitioner in W.P.No.709 of 2023
Vs.
1. The Management of Hinduja Foundries Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Ennore,
Chennai – 600 057. … 1st Respondent in W.P.No.17438 of 2020
2. The Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd
(Foundry Division)
Represented by its Managing Director,
Ennore, Chennai – 600 057,
(Impleaded as per Order in … 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.17438 of 2020
I.A.No. 22 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018)
1/ 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
Prayer in W.P.No.17438 of 2020
To issue orders, directions or writs in particular a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the award pronounced in
I.D.No.455 of 2017 by the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, on
15.06.2020 and quash the same and further direct the respondent management
to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other
attendant benefits, award cost.
Prayer in W.P.No. 709 of 2023
To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the I Additional Labour
Court, Chennai in ID No.455 of 2017 and quash its preliminary Award dated
13.02.2019 and final award dated 15.06.2020 and pass such further or other
orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance
of the case.
Prayer in WMP No.21620 of 2020 (in W.P.No.17438 of 2020)
To issue an order of ad interim direction, directing the respondent management
to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs provisionally to the Petitioner pending disposal of
the above writ petition.
Prayer in WMP No. 644 of 2023 (in W.P.No.709 of 2023)
To grant interim stay of operation of the award of the I Addl. Labour Court,
Chennai in ID No. 455 of 2017 dated 15.06.2020, pending disposal of the Writ
Petition and pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
In W.P.No.17438 of 2020 For M/s. K.Sudalaikanna, S.Latha and
& R.Aravithraj, & Advocates
For Respondent in
W.P.No.709 of 2023
2/ 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
For Petitioner
In W.P.No.709 of 2023 : Mr.Anand Gopalan, Advocate
& For M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates
For Respondent 2
In W.P.No.17438 of 2020
For Respondent 1 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Both writ petitions challenge the same award passed by the I Additional
Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 455 of 2017 dated 15.06.2020. By the said
award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner worker in the first writ petition
(W.P. No. 17438 of 2020) was not entitled to reinstatement but was instead
awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs in lieu of dismissal.
3. Aggrieved by the award, the workman filed the present writ petition as
early as 05.11.2020, seeking to quash that portion of the award which granted
him only compensation, and instead prayed for reinstatement with continuity of
service, back wages, and other attendant benefits. When the writ petition was
listed for admission on 10.12.2020, while ordering notice to the management,
the learned Judge also directed service of papers on M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
Advocates, who had represented the management before the Labour Court.
Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 23.12.2020, the learned Judge
passed the following order: —
“3.Considering both the submissions made by the learned counsel
respectively appearing for both sides, this Court is inclined to pass
the following order:
(i) The respondent Management shall deposit a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- [Rupees four lakhs only], as directed by the Labour
Court through the impugned award, in the Labour Court account,
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(ii) Out of the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner shall be
entitled to withdraw only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh
only] being 25%, by filing a formal petition before the Labour
Court and the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in
interest fetching Fixed Deposit until further orders.”
4. When the matter was taken up on 21.10.2021, the counsel for the
management submitted that the amount had been deposited with the Labour
Court as directed. It is also relevant to note that, Apart from the personal notice
issued, the notice from this Court was served on both managements as early as
14.12.2020. If the management was aggrieved by the award, they ought to have
challenged it either immediately upon receipt of the award from the
Government or, at the very least, upon receiving notice from this Court.
5. On the other hand, the management was merely speculating over filing a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
cross writ petition. Ultimately, they filed W.P. No. 709 of 2023, challenging not
only the final award dated 15.06.2020 but also the earlier preliminary award
dated 13.02.2019. Thus, the management filed the writ petition nearly three
years after the date of the award and even after having received notice in the
earlier writ petition.
6. The reason for the considerable delay in filing the writ petition is sought
to be explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, which reads as follows: —
“The Labour Court though held the Petitioner substantiated the
conduct of the Respondent and led to loss of confidence and
granted the relief of compensation. In other words, having
accepted the circumstances and probability, the relief granted by
the Labour Court it totally unsustainable. After the award though
the Petitioner was aggrieved over the relief granted by the Labour
Court, in order to give a quietus to the issue, it sent a
communication to the Respondent stating that in the event of
Respondent receiving the amount ordered by the Labour Court, it
could also accept the award and conclude the issue. However, the
Respondent did not respond to the communication of the
Petitioner whereas challenged the award before this Hon’ble
Court by way of Writ Petition No.17438 of 2020. In the
circumstances the Petition is also advised to challenge the award.”
7. Although the management claimed that a communication had been sent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
to the workman, neither a copy of the communication was enclosed in the typed
set nor was the date of the communication mentioned in the affidavit referred to
above. On the other hand, as already noted, this Court had directed private
notice to the management in the first writ petition filed by the workman. While
passing an interim order on 23.12.2020, the Court recorded the submission
made on behalf of the management that they had filed another writ petition,
which was yet to be numbered and was likely to be listed for admission shortly.
In the interim order dated 23.12.2020, this Court recorded the said submission
as follows: —
“Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondent
Management has submitted that, as against the impugned award
of directing Rs.4,00,000/- compensation to the petitioner
employee, the Management also filed a writ petition and it is yet
to be numbered, therefore, he wants to hear this writ petition
along with the writ petition filed by the Management, which
would shortly come up for admission.”
8. On the contrary, no writ petition had been filed by the management on
the date when the above statement was made before this Court. As per the court
records, W.P. No. 709 of 2023 was filed by the management only on
09.01.2023, as reflected in WPSR No. 3379 of 2023. The affidavit in support of
the writ petition was sworn by one A.S. Syed Fasullah, Senior Manager–HR,
only on 31.12.2022, and the writ petition was signed by the counsel on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
02.01.2023. When the writ petition was listed for admission on 11.01.2023, it
was not admitted and only notice was ordered. There was also no request made
to post their writ petition along with the earlier writ petition filed by the
workman. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 15.11.2024, only the
management’s case was referred for mediation, and upon failure of settlement,
the matter was placed for final disposal.
9. It was only on 06.02.2025 that this Court directed the second writ
petition to be tagged along with the earlier writ petition. This Court is not
inclined to accept the explanation for the enormous delay in filing the second
writ petition, even though it pertains to the same award. The reasons offered
suggest that the management was merely speculating without any clear or
definite intention to pursue a challenge to the award. The decision to file a writ
petition on their own appears to have dawned only after a lapse of more than
two years, and not immediately upon receipt of notice in the first writ petition
or when the interim order was passed. Even at the time of the interim order,
although the counsel for the management was aware, no writ petition had been
filed, nor was one pending numbering before the Registry. The conduct of the
management is wholly unsatisfactory, and they are clearly guilty of delay and
laches in filing the second writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
10. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1975) 1
SCC 152, wherein it was held that petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The
relevant observation reads as follows: —
“It is not that 'here is any period of limitation for the Courts to
exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can
never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after
the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound
and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise
their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of
persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who
stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court
to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters- The
petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in
limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court.
It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court
in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We
consider that the High court was right in dismissing the
appellant's petition as well as the appeal.”
11. Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others,
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court held as follows: —
“…it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an
appropriate writ under article 226 of the Con- stitution is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
discretionary and the High Court in the exer- cise of its discretion
does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent of the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the
part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not
satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene
and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The
evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a
number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a
belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ
jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of
third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is
excercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may
have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience
but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of
the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled With the
creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important
factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding
whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.”
12. Further, in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman
& Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan, reported in (2006) 4
SCC 322, the Supreme Court held as follows: —
“Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind
by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the
High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there
is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to
assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and
other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even
where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the
discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 SC 769). Of course,
the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
13. Therefore, even without entering into the merits of the case set up in
W.P. No. 709 of 2023, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches. Consequently, the connected WMP shall also stand
dismissed. Further, for engaging in speculative conduct and for making a
misleading statement before this Court, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the
petitioner, payable to the counsel for the respondent workman.
14. In W.P. No. 17438 of 2020, the case of the petitioner is that he joined the
services of the respondent management on 14.10.1992 as a trainee in the Core
Shop Department. Thereafter, he was designated as a probationer from
14.10.1994 to 08.04.1995, and was subsequently confirmed in service as a
monthly-rated Grade I worker on 09.04.1996. A charge sheet dated 18.10.2015
was issued to the workman, alleging certain acts of misconduct. He submitted
his explanation on 23.10.2015. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted.
By a detailed report dated 05.05.2016, the Enquiry Officer found the workman
guilty of misconduct, which included altering the attendance register,
attempting to claim salary for days on which he was absent, and receiving
salary even for days when he had not reported for duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
15. Based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated
25.05.2016 was issued to the workman, calling upon him to submit his
comments on the findings. The workman submitted his reply on 06.06.2016.
After considering the reply, the management dismissed him from service by
order dated 16.06.2016. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the workman raised an
industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation)
through a petition dated 09.12.2016. The management appeared before the
Conciliation Officer and filed their written remarks on 05.04.2017. As the
Conciliation Officer was unable to bring about a settlement, he issued a failure
report dated 19.04.2017.
16. Based on the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement before
the Labour Court on 09.04.2018. The I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, took
up the dispute as I.D. No. 455 of 2017 and issued notice to the management.
The management filed a counter statement dated 18.05.2018. Before the Labour
Court, a preliminary issue was framed regarding the validity of the domestic
enquiry. By a preliminary award dated 13.02.2019, the Labour Court held that
the domestic enquiry had not been conducted in a fair and proper manner.
17. Thereafter, fresh evidence was adduced before the Labour Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
workman examined himself as WW1, while on the side of the management,
three witnesses were examined as MW1 to MW3. The workman filed 19
documents, which were marked as Exhibits W1 to W19. On behalf of the
management, 14 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits M1 to M14.
Upon an analysis of the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the
testimonies of MW1 and MW2 did not establish that Gajendran had entered the
cabin room along with his co-officer and found the workman inside. The
Labour Court further held that the charge of manipulation of the attendance
register was not proved by any direct evidence, nor was there reliable material
to establish that the petitioner had gained entry into the administrative area and
altered the attendance register. At the same time, the Labour Court also found
that the workman's allegation of victimization, purportedly to coerce him into
accepting the VRS Scheme, was not substantiated.
18. On a consideration of the preponderance of probabilities, the Labour
Court declined to accept the charge of misconduct levelled against the
workman. However, while granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages,
the Labour Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Dass v.
National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd., reported in 1994
Supp (1) SCC 520, and referred to the following passage from the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
judgment: —
“We need not go into the case-law on this subject because it is
well settled that if it is a case of loss of confidence the discretion
is vested in the Court to refuse reinstatement. This is based on the
doctrine of confidence”
19. Applying the above principle, the Labour Court, invoking the theory of
loss of confidence, moulded the relief accordingly in paragraph 17 of the
impugned award, which reads as follows: —
“The circumstances under which the respondent management lost
confidence is also clearly established and the petitioner is
challenging the proof of misconduct by the respondent
meticulously and minutely pointing out the discrepancies in the
evidence of the management has not come forward to show his
bonafide conducts in these facts and circumstances. It is not the
mere claim of right to silence as could be made in a criminal case
is expected in the Labour Court for the adjudication of the
Industrial dispute. A positive evidence or positive plea to
substantiate the petitioner’s innocence and bonafide conduct are
also required to be shown to believe that he could not have been
involved in such conduct of manipulating the attendance. On the
other hand, the available evidences substantiated the misconduct
of the petitioner and also which would substantiate the
surrounding circumstances to have loss of confidence reasonably
by the management on the conduct of the petitioner in these
circumstances. Therefore also this court holds that the contention
of the respondent that the petitioner cannot be directed to be
reinstated in the same place is acceptable by this court. But at the
same time this court upon considering the length of service of the
petitioner for nearly 23 years, his last drawn wages being
Rs.40,812/- and the absence of proof of any other misconduct as
against the petitioner, is inclined to award a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
as compensation in lieu of the relief of reinstatement with back
wages and other benefits sought for by the petitioner in the
petition.”
20. Although the counsel for the management contended that strict rules of
evidence are not applicable and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491, such a
contention does not arise in the present case, as fresh evidence was let in before
the Labour Court. Consequently, the standard of proof required is not that
applicable to a domestic enquiry. This position has been clearly laid down by
the Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company
of India v. Management, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813. Following that
judgment, it is now settled that the satisfaction as to the evidence must be that
of the Labour Court and not of the employer.
21. Having held that the charges levelled against the workman were not
proved, the question arises whether it was open to the Labour Court to deny the
normal relief on the ground of loss of confidence by the employer. In the
dismissal order dated 16.06.2016 (Ex.W8) passed against the workman, there is
no reference to any loss of confidence as the basis for the dismissal. On the
contrary, the plea of loss of confidence was raised for the first time in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
counter statement filed by the management on 18.08.2018, wherein it was
stated that the management could no longer rely on the petitioner. However, no
details were provided regarding the status of the petitioner or the nature of the
post held by him. It is admitted that the petitioner was employed as a Grade-I
worker, functioning as a Production Assistant, and was responsible for quality
checking of the casting moulds prepared by the operator.
22. MW1, the Senior Officer examined in support of the charges, did not,
even in his proof affidavit, state anything about the confidential nature of the
post held by the workman. The same is true of MW2 and MW3. In the absence
of any such evidence, and apart from a bare pleading without supporting
particulars, it is unclear how the Labour Court concluded that the management
had lost confidence in the workman and, on that basis, held him ineligible for
reinstatement.
23. The learned senior counsel for the workman placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager,
Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 609. Attention was
drawn to the following passage found in paragraph 9, which reads as follows:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
“Substantial contention on the merits of the case by the employer
in these appeals is that the finding of loss of confidence in the
employee by the labour court has been reversed in appeal by the
Industrial Court on unreasonable grounds. What must be pleaded
and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that (i) the
workman is holding a position of trust and confidence; (ii) by
abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting
the same; and (iii) to continue him in service would be
embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be
detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All
these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on
ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be
subjective based upon the mind of the Management. Objective
facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in
the mind of the Management regarding trustworthiness or
reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. Else, the
right of reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will be
lost.”
24. The learned senior counsel further referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in L. Michael v. M/s. Johnson Pumps Ltd., reported in
(1975) 1 SCC 574, wherein the Court held as follows: —
“The above study of the. chain of rulings brings out the futility of
the contention that subsequent to Murugan Mill's Case (supra)
colourable exercise of power has lost validity and loss of
confidence has gained ground. The law is. simply this : The
Tribunal has the power land, indeed, the duty to X-ray the order
and discover its true nature, if ,,he object and effect, if the
attendant circumstances and the ulterior purpose be to dismiss the
employee because he is an evil to be eliminated. But if the
management, to cover up the inability to establish by an enquiry,
illegitimately but ingeniously passes an innocent-looking order of
termination simpliciter, such action is bad and is liable to be set
aside. Loss of confidence is no new Armour for the management;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
otherwise security of tenure, ensured by the new industrial
Jurisprudence and authenticated by a catena of cases of this
Court, can be subverted by this neo- formula. Loss of confidence
in the Law will be the conse- quence of the Loss of Confidence
doctrine.”
25. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 8, cautioned
against the uncritical application of the said principle in the context of
industrial law, observing as follows: —
“Two socially vital factors must inform the understanding and
application of Industrial jurisprudence. The first is the
constitutional mandate of Part IV obligating the State to make
'provision for securing just and humane conditions of work'.
Security of employment is the first requisite of a worker's life.
The second equally axiomatic consideration is that a worker who
willfully or anti-socially holds up the wheels of production or
undermines the success of the business is a high risk and
deserves, in industrial interest, to be removed-without tears.
Legislation and judicial interpretation have woven the legal
fabric. We have to see whether on the facts of the present case
what the relevant law is, whether it has been applied by the
Labour Court rightly and whether the appellant has merit on his
side, judged by the social conscience and judicial construction of
the law in this branch of discharge simpliciter versus disguised'
dismissal.”
26. The learned senior counsel further submitted that, notwithstanding a stray
statement made in the counter statement, the management made no attempt to
adduce evidence regarding the nature of the post held by the workman or the
degree of confidence allegedly reposed in him, which would warrant the
application of the theory of loss of confidence due to the alleged misconduct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
He contended that, having raised such a defence, it was incumbent upon the
management to lead appropriate evidence before the Labour Court, which they
miserably failed to do. In support of this submission, he relied on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Amar Chakravarty v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
reported in (2010) 14 SCC 471, and referred to the following passage from
paragraph 13, which reads as follows: —
“Whilst it is true that the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 per
se are not applicable in an industrial adjudication, it is trite that its
general principles do apply in proceedings before the Industrial
Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be. (See: Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas5). In any proceeding, the
burden of proving a fact lies on the party that substantially asserts
the affirmative of the issue, and not on the party who denies it.
(See: Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh6) Therefore, it follows that
where an employer asserts misconduct on the part of the workman
and dismisses or discharges him on that ground, it is for him to
prove (2005) 5 SCC 100 (2008) 9 SCC 486 (2004) 8 SCC
195 (2006) 5 SCC 558 misconduct by the workman before the
Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, by
leading relevant evidence before it and it is open to the workman
to adduce evidence contra. In the first instance, a workman cannot
be asked to prove that he has not committed any act
tantamounting to misconduct.”
27. In the present case, the management failed to prove that the workman
occupied a position of trust and confidence, or that his reinstatement would
result in a loss to the management due to a lack of confidence. Although a
senior officer was examined as MW1, no evidence was led on this aspect.
Having raised such a defence, it was incumbent upon the management to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
substantiate it, which they failed to do. It was not open to the Labour Court to
take up a special plea and decide the matter against the workman in the absence
of supporting evidence. The finding recorded in paragraph 17 of the impugned
award is not based on any legal evidence and cannot be sustained. Accordingly,
the award, insofar as it relates to the relief portion, is liable to be modified.
28.For the reasons stated above, the impugned award in I.D. No. 455 of
2017 dated 15.06.2020, insofar as it denies the normal relief of
reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages, and other attendant
benefits, is found to be erroneous. It is hereby directed that the petitioner
in W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 shall be entitled to reinstatement, continuity
of service, back wages, and all other attendant benefits. The award shall
stand modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, W.P. No.
17438 of 2020 is allowed to the extent stated. W.P. No. 709 of 2023 is
dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, as directed earlier. Consequently, all
connected WMPs shall stand dismissed.
29. In view of the interim order directing the management to deposit a sum
of Rs.4 lakhs, with liberty granted to the petitioner to withdraw Rs.1 lakh and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs to be invested in a fixed deposit, and in light
of the dismissal of W.P. No. 709 of 2023, the petitioner in W.P. No. 17438 of
2020 is entitled to withdraw the balance amount. The petitioner is also granted
liberty to execute the award, as modified by this Court, for the full reliefs
granted.
30.04.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Copy to:
The Presiding Labour,
I Addl. Labour Court,
Chennai 600104
(with records)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
W.P. No. 17438 of 2020 and W.P. No. 709 of 2023
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:15:46 pm )
