IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 26..6..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 18137 of 1997 The Management of Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., (now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-I) Ltd.,) Bye-pass Road, Madurai. .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. 2. E. Mayandi (deceased) S/o. Irulandi Thevar 3. Smt. Kalyani, W/o. late E. Mayandi 4. Chitra (Minor) D/o. late E. Mayandi 5. Chinnapandi (Minor) S/o. late E. Mayandi R3 to R5 LRs of the deceased 2nd respondent as per order dt.11.4.08 in WPMP.1366/2007 .. Respondents Respondents 4 and 5 are minors rep by their mother and natural Guardian 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 in I.D.No.431/1992 dated 13-11-1996 (which is received by the petitioner only on 21.2.1997) and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Pathiyal For Respondents : Mr.R. Malaichamy (R3 to R5) - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the Award dated 13.11.1996 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 431 of 1992 in so far as it had ordered the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages, the Management of the State owned Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 3. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit one half of the amount of backwages. Subsequently, extension of time was sought for and this Court extended the time vide order dated 24.6.1998. By an order dated 15.4.2005, this Court also directed the workman to withdraw 25% of the amount deposited before the Labour Court. Thereafter, when the matter was listed, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had passed away on 16.12.2005 and, therefore, his wife and the two children have been brought on record as respondents 3 to 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management submitted that subsequent to the Award, the Management directed the petitioner to join duty on 27.6.1997 without prejudice to the writ petition. Accordingly, he also joined as a Driver but, however, he was once again dismissed by the Management vide order dated 15.12.1998 on the ground that the petitioner had produced bogus educational certificate while joining the service. It is not brought to the notice of this Court as to whether the said dismissal was under challenge before any forum. 5. Be that as it may, the Award of the Labour Court proceeded mainly on the ground that the Management had not filed the domestic enquiry report and they sought for another opportunity to defend themselves. The Labour Court in paragraph 8 of the Award had held follows:- "8. No reason in writing was given by the management side in their counter-statement for non-filing of the documents pertaining to the departmental enquiry. It is the presumption of this court that those documents will be in such a manner which could not be filed into court or the management is stating about a imaginary departmental enquiry. Since this court could not come to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry is proper or improper, this court decides that the departmental enquiry stated to have been conducted by the management against the workman is not true and the termination of the workman based https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on that is not proper and these two points are answered accordingly." 6. But having held that the domestic enquiry report have not been produced and the enquiry is vitiated, it did not give any opportunity to the Management to lead fresh evidence but held that the non-production of the departmental enquiry proceedings was the basis for grant of relief of reinstatement with backwages. This approach of the Labour Court cannot be permissible. 7. The Management has filed a memo dated 29.4.2008 before this Court seeking permission to file the enquiry report. Along with the memo, they have also filed a report of the Enquiry Officer and the same was taken on record. 8. It is seen from the said Report that the Enquiry Officer had gone into all aspects of the case and had properly held a domestic enquiry and thereafter, found the petitioner guilty. If this record had been placed before the Labour Court, no doubt, the Labour Court would have taken a different view. In any event, in the counter statement, the Management had taken a stand that though they had sought for a fresh opportunity to lead evidence, they were not given any opportunity. Therefore, on this ground, the Award of the Labour Court is liable to be remitted back for fresh disposal. But, however, in the light of the subsequent development that the petitioner was once again terminated from service on 15.12.1998 on the ground of production of bogus educational certificate, there is no necessity to remand the matter for any further trial especially when the petitioner was dismissed for the second time. Unless and until the petitioner succeeds in that case, the remand of this case will be a mere academic exercise. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs. gri Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. • 1 cc to Mr. R. Malaichamy, Advocate SR No. 32410 • 1 cc to Mr. Rajnish pathiyil, Advocate SR No. 32555 SSN(CO) SR/2.7.2008 Order in W.P. No. 18137 of 1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/