IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 28..7..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 1554 of 1999 The Management Abiramam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Rep. by its President No. 39 Muslim Bazaar Abiramam Ramanathapuram District .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai 2. K. Boopathy .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in its Award made in I.D. No. 172 of 1993 dated 27.4.1998 and received by the petitioner on 21.9.1998 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. Silambannan, SC for Mr.Umapathy For Respondent 2 : Mr. S. Arunachalam for Ms.T.Girija O R D E R Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.4.1998 made in I.D. No. 172 of 1993 wherein and by which the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages, service continuity and other benefits, the Management has preferred the present writ petition. However, by the exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'], in respect of the charges, which were held to be proved, it directed stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The second respondent was employed as a Typist by the petitioner Management on 01.8.1983. Even though he was a Typist, he was entrusted with the work of "A" Class share transactions. Normally, the said work is given to Clerks and Accountants, who would have been given a special training. But, though the second respondent was not having any special skill, he was directed to do the work. He was suspended by an order dated 08.10.1991 on the ground that he told his superior officer, "Go away. I know what I want I am doing." A charge-memo dated 12.12.1991 was given to him containing 11 charges. But without conducting a proper enquiry and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service on 23.5.1992. 4. Thereafter, he raised a dispute and the matter was taken before the Labour Court which took up the dispute as I.D. N o. 172 of 1993. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the enquiry conducted by the Management. By its order dated 18.6.1996, it set aside the enquiry conducted by the Management. Subsequent to the preliminary issue, evidence was let in afresh before the Labour Court. The second respondent examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 13 documents, viz, Exs. W.1 to W.13. On the side of the petitioner Management, two witnesses were examined viz., M.W.1 and M.W.2 and filed 30 documents, which were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.30. The Labour Court, on the basis of the material both oral and documentary, held that the charges 1, 5, 8 and part of charge No. 10 alone have been proved and the other charges were not proved. 5. In the present case, the serious charge against the workman was that on 08.10.1991, when he was asked to show the register of typed material, he told the Special officer in Tamil as follows: "vd;d rhu; rj;jk; nghl;L ngRwP';f? ? ngh';f bjupa[J" This was considered to be a riotous conduct. Perhaps, irritated by his behaviour, the Special Officer had taken the issue seriously which finally resulted in multiplication of charges and the workman was also dismissed. 6. The Labour Court, after analysis of each charge, held that most of the serious charges were not proved. And for the proved charges, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and, therefore, it directed stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 7. Mr. Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the approach of the Labour Court was erroneous and the Labour Court was wrong in directing his reinstatement. He also submitted that pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of backwages alone and there was no stay regarding reinstatement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The petitioner society filed I.A. No. 53 of 2004 in I.D. No. 172 of 1993 seeking to deposit a sum of Rs.77,708/- drawn in favour of the Labour Court in the light of the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 2214 of 1999. But the workman stated that his claim came to Rs.1,84,335/- which was 50% of the wages directed to be deposited. The Labour Court in view of the objection, refused to receive the said amount as it was not in terms of the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by this Court. 9. With reference to the harsh language allegedly used by the second respondent, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of this Court in The Management of English Electric Company of India Ltd., Madras v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and another 1975 (2) L.L.J. 430 and paragraph 7 reads as follows:- Para 7: "The Labour Court has considered this finding of the enquiry officer with regard to charge No. 5 and has come to the conclusion that having regard to the very conclusion of the enquiry officer himself, that there must have been provocation, the charge cannot be said to have been serious if it has been held proved. For the purpose of understanding the substance of the charge, it is necessary to state what exactly were the words that were said to have been used by the second respondent which according to the petitioner constituted disrespectful and rude behaviour towards the superiors. The second respondent was alleged to have told one P.V.Ganesan, "rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg; ghu;j;Jf;nfh" ("Sarithan Poya, Unnal Anathai Parthuko"). The witness in support of this charge was one R. (Sic) Gopalakrishnan, who stated that on 7th April, around 10.am he heard argument between Mr. P.V. Ganesan and C.S.Meenakshisundaram; he heard Meenakshisundaram telling Ganesan: "rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg; ghu;j;Jf;nfh". Consequently all that was held proved before the enquiry officer was that the second respondent uttered those words to P.V. Ganesan. The question for consideration is whether that evidence can be said to have established the charge. As I pointed out already, the enquiry officer has held that there must have been provocation for the second respondent using that language. If that provocation is admitted, certainly the charge with reference to the use of that language loses its severity and therefore it cannot be said to be a serious charge. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court itself has pointed out that having regard to the language generally used by labourers in Madras, the language employed by the second respondent namely, "rhpjhd; ngha;ah. cd;By; Mdijg; ghu;j;Jf;nfh" cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be said to be a rude or disrespectful language but a normal language prevalent among the labourers herein. I am unable to hold that the Labour Court, committed any error in this behalf. On the other hand, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that notwithstanding the provocation which made the second respondent use this language, the charge framed against him was proved, is certainly a perverse conclusion." 10. Considering the fact that the other charges are minor and the Labour Court having exercised its power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act to interfere with the punishment, this Court does not consider the Award passed by the Labour Court as erroneous or illegal. In the light of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. Hence, the petitioner Management is directed to comply with the impugned Award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gri To The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai +1 cc To Mr. S. Arunachalam, Advocate, SR.40799 +1 cc To Mr. Silambannan, Advocate, SR.40579 W.P. No. 1554 of 1999 tej[co] gkg/8.8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/