Madras High Court

P.Subramani vs The Management on 12 March, 2025

                                                                                       W.P. No. 4801 of 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                         (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                                           RESERVED ON                    02142025
                                          PRONOUNCED ON                   12/03/2025

                                                        PRESENT:

                            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

                                               W.P. No.4801 of 2021

                     P.Subramani, (E.No.85),
                     S/o. K.Perumal,
                     C/o. Narayanappa (Postman),
                     ‘O’ Karapalli, Chennathur Village,
                     Hosur                                       ….Petitioner
                                            Vs.
                     The Management
                     Sua Explosives P Ltd
                     Onnalvadi Post,
                     Hosur,
                     Krishnagiri District.                                    …Respondent

                     Prayer in the W.P.


                     To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, or Order, or
                     Direction, in the nature of Writ, calling for the records of the impugned
                     award dated 22.02.2018 passed in I.D.No.105 of 2012 on the file of the
                     Labour Court, Salem and quash the same and consequently direct the
                     Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into his Services and award all
                     monetary benefits to him within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )
                     1/11
                                                                                          W.P. No. 4801 of 2021

                     Court and pass such further or other order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may
                     deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.


                     Appearance of Parties:

                     For Petitioner: Ms.U.Ramya, Advocate
                                     For M/s. R.Bharathi Kumar, T.Vedi, S.A.Sayed Shuhaibb
                                     and Ms. R. Divyapreathika, Advocates.

                     For Respondent: Mr. Ananthakrishnan Gopalan, Advocate
                                For M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocates


                                                  JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The petitioner was a workman in the respondent company.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 25.10.2010, he raised an industrial

dispute before the Government Labour Officer at Krishnagiri through his

representation dated 16.03.2011. As the conciliation efforts failed, the

Labour Officer issued a failure report on 08.08.2011. Based on the failure

report, the petitioner filed a claim statement dated 08.08.2012. The

dispute was taken on file by the Labour Court, Salem, as I.D. No. 105 of

2012, and notice was issued to the respondent management. In response,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

the respondent management filed a counter statement on 22.02.2013.

3. As the workman challenged the fairness of the enquiry, the

Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on this aspect. In support of their

case, the management submitted 22 documents, which were marked as

Ex. M1 to Ex. M22. Upon consideration, the Labour Court held that the

enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and,

by its order dated 07.06.2016, set aside the enquiry. However, since the

management, in its counter statement, had made an alternative plea—

seeking an opportunity to prove the charges before the Labour Court in

the event that the enquiry was found to be invalid—the matter proceeded

accordingly.

4. Availing the opportunity granted, the management examined K.

Srinivasan as MW1 and submitted 16 documents, which were marked as

Ex. M1 to Ex. M16. The Labour Court, upon evaluation, upheld the

dismissal order, finding that the charges against the petitioner workman

were duly proved. It further declined to interfere with the penalty

imposed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 22.02.2018 in I.D. No. 105 of

2012, the present writ petition was filed after a delay of three years.

However, the affidavit in support of the writ petition did not provide any

justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. The writ

petition was admitted on 03.03.2021, and upon issuance of notice, the

respondent’s counsel entered an appearance. The respondent’s counsel

also filed a counter affidavit dated 16.09.2023, along with a typed set of

documents containing Exhibits M7 to M14 that were submitted before

the Labour Court. On behalf of the workman, in addition to the

documents filed along with the writ petition, an additional typed set was

submitted, including Ex. M1, Ex. M3 to Ex. M5, and Ex. M15. They also

filed the oral evidence recorded during the domestic enquiry.

6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

reported in 1999 (1) SCC 517, wherein it was held that once an enquiry

conducted by the employer is vitiated, no part of such an enquiry can be

relied upon by the Labour Court. Consequently, this Court cannot take

into consideration the oral evidence recorded during the domestic

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

enquiry. Furthermore, since the management was granted liberty to lead

fresh evidence, the workman also had the opportunity to present rebuttal

evidence. However, he did not avail himself of this opportunity, and as a

result, no material was placed on record on his behalf before the Labour

Court. The same principle applies to the nature of the evidence submitted

by the management before the Labour Court.

7. In the impugned award, while the Labour Court acknowledged the

legal principle that a vitiated enquiry cannot be relied upon, it

nevertheless considered the admissions made by the workman in his

explanation dated 13.10.2009 (Ex. M6) in response to the charge sheet

dated 22.09.2009 (Ex. M4). Based on the explanation, the Labour Court

concluded that the workman had agreed to work the third shift from 11:00

p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and had consented to continue working after completing

the second shift. Referring to the cross-examination of MW1, the Labour

Court observed that the third shift commenced only after midnight,

around 12:00 a.m., following the supply of raw materials. During this

period—between 12:30 a.m., 12:45 a.m., and 1:15 a.m.—some workers,

including the petitioner, were found sleeping. The petitioner was

identified by his initials (PS) by the Works Manager, and the Supervisor,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

Dharman, had made similar remarks in his complaint, marked as Ex. M3.

According to the complaint, the workmen were engaged in threshing and

weaving work but were lying down until 1:15 a.m. The Labour Court

noted that there was a clear admission that they were resting until 1:30

a.m. after informing the Supervisor.

8. The Labour Court further held that sleeping while on duty

constitutes clear misconduct and noted that the workman had a prior

history of similar behavior. It rejected the contention that the case

amounted to victimization. The Court also observed that, apart from the

petitioner, none of the four other dismissed workers had raised any

dispute regarding their termination. It also emphasized that since the

respondent company is engaged in the production of explosives,

maintaining strict vigilance at all times is crucial. The Labour Court

found that the workman’s explanation, which was submitted only after 20

days, appeared to be an afterthought, possibly influenced by his union

leader. Consequently, having found the charge of sleeping while on duty

to be duly proved, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief to the

workman and dismissed the industrial dispute.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

9. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent,

reference was made to the workman’s previous conduct, which is as

follows:

“19. ….. However, the conduct of the Petitioner was repetitive in nature and on earlier 3 occasions he was visited with minor punishment and on one occasion he was terminated. On the basis of assurance given by the Petitioner, he was reinstated. However, when the Petitioner was found to be regularly breaching the rules of the company, the Petitioner deserves no leniency in the matter of punishment.”

10. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate,

reported in 2005 (2) SCC 489, in support of his argument. In that case, the

Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in Colourchem Limited,

reported in 1998 (3) SCC 192, where certain workers found sleeping on

duty were let off on the ground that it constituted only minor misconduct.

However, the Supreme Court distinguished the Colourchem Limited case

made the following observations:

“In that case the Respondents therein were punished although ten other mazdoors who were also found to be sleeping were let off. This Court noticed that the Respondents therein were although assigned more responsible duties as compared to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

mazdoors but in the background of the surrounding circumstances and especially in the light of their past service record there was no escape from the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal imposed on them for such misconduct was grossly and shockingly disproportionate. Cholour-Chem Ltd. (supra) was, thus, rendered in the fact situation obtaining therein. It is not an authority for the proposition that in a case where an employee is found to be sleeping during working hours, imposition of punishment of dismissal, despite his past bad records must be held to be disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

In the instant case although victimization has been taken to be a ground of complaint, no factual foundation therefor was laid and it was confined to quoting only the legal provisions. No plea of legal victimization was also taken in the complaint petition.”

11. The second decision cited by the learned counsel, Kerala

Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr., reported in 2006 (13)

SCC 619, addressed the scope of courts in granting relief, emphasizing

that such relief must be logical and tenable. A reference was made to the

following passage in paragraph 9:

“. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:33:57 pm )

They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. ”

12. The third decision, K. Raju v. The Presiding Officer, W.P. (MD)

No. 362 of 2017, dated 02.03.2017, primarily dealt with the burden of

proof regarding an employee's claim of unemployment during litigation,

placing the onus on the employee. However, this issue is not relevant to

the present case.

13. Though the counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments

based on the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition, this Court is not inclined to accept any of them. The impugned

award does not suffer from any infirmity. The Labour Court exercised its

powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, both in

evaluating the charges based on the evidence and in determining that

there was no justification for interfering on the ground of disproportionate