IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.3.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.10697 of 2001 S.K.Arumugathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore. 2. The Management of the Thennanoor Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. rep. by its Secretary. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in I.D.No.266 of 1996, dated 27.12.2000 on the file of the first respondent, to quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and with back-wages and with all other attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar for 2nd respondent ORDER The petitioner is a workman. He has come forward to challenge the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.266 of 1996, dated 27.12.2000. By the impugned award, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed his industrial dispute. 2. The petitioner was working as a Secretary of the second respondent/Society. Criminal cases were filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.78 of 1980 and C.C.Nos.2 and 3 of 1989. In respect of C.C.No.78 of 1980, the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 408 IPC and he was found guilty of the charges, but however he was released on probation by invoking power under Section 4(1) the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on 31.12.1980. Subsequently, the two other criminal cases were tried and the charges were not proved and the petitioner was acquitted on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29.5.1995. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was terminated as early as in the year 1981 raised an industrial dispute after 15 years on the question of his non employment. The said dispute came up before the first respondent/Labour Court and was taken on file as I.D.No.266 of 1996 and notice was ordered to the second respondent/ management. 3. The second respondent/management took up the contention that the petitioner was terminated as early as 23.7.1980 and subsequently enquiries were also conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner has accepted the charges of misappropriation and also accepted his responsibility and he was removed from service on 26.5.1981. Subsequent to the removal, the petitioner was convicted. He never raised any dispute regarding his non- employment and it is improper for him to raise a dispute after 15 years and the petitioner's contention that he was facing criminal cases and that was the reason for raising dispute belatedly cannot be accepted. 4. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 19 documents as Exs.W1 to W19 and on the side of the second respondent, M/s.Palanisamy and Sundararajan were examined as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and 43 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M43. 5. The Labour Court, on an overall consideration of all the materials - both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court held that in order to escape from the criminal cases the petitioner initially gave a resignation letter and subsequently withdrew the letter and that he also accepted the charges and asked for leniency. In the enquiry held against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty vide enquiry report marked as Ex.M27. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner has failed to dislodge the finding of misappropriation leveled against him. It is in that view of the matter, the dispute was dismissed. As against the award dated 27.12.2000, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. The writ petition was admitted on 21.6.2001 and notice was ordered. Though pending the writ petition the petitioner sought for reinstatement, the same was negatived by this Court by order dated 21.6.2001. Even his petition for stay was also rejected. 7. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 13.9.2001 justifying the award passed by the Labour Court. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the management had raised the issue of inordinate delay as a preliminary issue before the Labour Court as I.D.No.42 of 1997 and when the Labour Court refused to try that as a preliminary issue, against the said order the management came to this Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.14220 of 1997, however this Court dismissed the said writ petition and stated that the question of delay and laches can be considered along with the main case. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the Labour Court denying the relief on merits as well as on the ground of inordinate delay. 8. Though Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in a matter of reference of this nature the delay can have no effect except on back-wages, the larger question whether at all the petitioner is entitled to any relief has to be seen in the context of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 9. Rule 149(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows: "No person shall be appointed to the service of any society, if he has been found guilty of any offence involving moral turpitude. An employee shall cease to be as such in a society, if he is found guilty of any such offence." 10. K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J., speaking for the Court, in Management of Karungalpalayam Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Karungalpalayam v. Presiding Oficer, Labour Court, Salem, [2002] 4 LLN 386 : 2003 I LLJ 187 held that a person, who was found guilty of an offence and paid fine for the same under Sections 408 and 477-A of the IPC, will certainly be guilty of committing an offence involving moral turpitude. It is in that factual matrix, the Court came to the conclusion that such a person is not to be retained in the service of the Society and the Society need not conduct any personal enquiry when once there is admission of guilt in a competent Criminal Court. This view was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in 2007 (8) MLJ 96. 11. Therefore, there is no case made out to entertain a writ petition. The petitioner did not satisfy the Court about his innocence nor utilized the opportunity to convince the Court that the criminal cases have been foisted against him. On the contrary, the conviction in the criminal case is staring against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the light of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.R.Balasubramanian, Advocate Sr 14746 +1cc to Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr 14950 GR(CO) km/15.3. W.P.No.10697 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/