IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 13-08-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3684 of 2001 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (villupuram Divn.III) Ltd., (formerly known as PT MGR Transport) Corporation Ltd.,) Kancheepuram. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai. 2.Hari Kesavan .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed in I.D.No.676 of 1997, dated 19.09.2000, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Court (R1) Mr.K.M.Ramesh (R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation, challenging the award, dated 19.9.2000, passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein, in I.D.No.676 of 1997, reinstating the second respondent in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages, along with other attendant benefits. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute, challenging the order of dismissal, dated 11.6.94. The second respondent was employed as a conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While so, he had absented himself from duty from 12.6.93 to 21.6.93 and from 30.6.93 to 2.12.93, without applying for leave and without obtaining the necessary permission from the petitioner management. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, a show cause notice had been issued to the second respondent by the petitioner management. After receipt of the show cause notice, the second respondent had failed to submit an explanation. Hence, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry following the principles of natural justice by giving sufficient opportunity to the second respondent to defend his case. The second respondent had participated in the enquiry proceedings and he had admitted the charges framed by the petitioner Corporation. Based on the enquiry report he was dismissed from service by an order, dated 11.6.94, after following the due process of law. The order of dismissal had been passed against the second respondent for his act of misconduct. 3. It was also stated on behalf of the petitioner Corporation that the second respondent had suffered several punishments for his earlier acts of misconduct committed by him while he was in service. In spite of the repeated warnings and the punishments awarded to him, the second respondent did not show any anxiety to correct himself. Due to the absence of the second respondent from duty, the petitioner Corporation was forced to appoint some other persons to maintain the operation of buses. Thus, the petitioner Corporation was put to serious hardship and loss. 4. It has been further stated that the Labour Court ought to have held that the second respondent had no right to raise the industrial dispute before the Labour Court as he had admitted the charge of unauthorised absence during the enquiry proceedings. The first respondent Labour Court ought to have seen that the second respondent had raised the industrial dispute, belatedly, as he was dismissed from service on 11.6.94 and he had raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1997. The first respondent Labour Court had ordered reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service and 50% of backwages and other attendant benefits without analysing the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner Corporation and the documents marked on its behalf. The impugned award passed by the first respondent Labour Court is not supported by any material evidence. In such circumstances, the petitioner Corporation had filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award, dated 19.9.2000, passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.676 of 1997. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the second respondent had been dismissed from service on 11.6.94, for unauthorised absence between 12.6.93 to 21.6.93 and from 30.6.93 onwards. A charge memo, dated 2.12.93, had been issued against the second respondent, based on which a full fledged domestic enquiry had been conducted. The second respondent had participated in the said enquiry and he had accepted the charges levelled against him. The second respondent had also absented himself from duty on earlier occasions. From the cross examination of the second respondent it is clear that the second respondent did not come for work for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ periods mentioned in the charge memo and that he had absented himself without obtaining the prior permission of the management and without asking for leave. Therefore, the second respondent had been dismissed from service. In such circumstances, the punishment imposed on the second respondent is in accordance with law and therefore, the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 19.9.2000, reinstating the second respondent in service with 50% backwages is liable to be set aside, being contrary to law. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that this Court had granted interim stay of the impugned award by its order, dated 27.2.2001, made in W.M.P.No.5118 of 2001. Further, the order of the interim stay granted by this Court on 27.2.2001, had been made absolute by an order of this Court, dated 8.10.2001, subject to the condition that the petitioner Corporation pays a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the second respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that the second respondent had been reinstated in service on 22.6.2001 and the direction issued by this Court to pay Rs.25,000/- to the second respondent, as part of the backwages, had also been complied with. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 19.9.2000, reinstating the second respondent in service with 50% backwages, is in accordance with law and therefore, it is valid. The first respondent Labour Court had come to its conclusions after having found that in spite of sufficient proof having been submitted by the second respondent, by way of medical certificates, to explain his absence from duty, the Enquiry Officer had not considered the same. The first respondent Labour Court had found that even though the second respondent was given sufficient opportunity to participate in the domestic enquiry, he had not accepted the charges levelled against him, as claimed by the petitioner management. The second respondent had sufficiently explained the reasons for his absence by producing the required medical certificates. 8. The first respondent Labour Court had also found that for the absence of the second respondent from duty, between 12.6.93 to 21.6.93, he had been punished with a severe warning. Thereafter, the second respondent had been taken back in service from 22.6.93. In such circumstances, it is not right for the petitioner management to issue a charge memo to the second respondent for unauthorised absence, including the period from 12.6.93 to 21.6.93, for which punishment had already been imposed on the second respondent. 9. It was also found that the petitioner management had been prejudiced against the second respondent and that had lead to the imposing of the severe punishment of removal from service on the second respondent. Since the punishment imposed on the second respondent by the petitioner management is contrary to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ principles of natural justice, the first respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 19.9.2000, reinstating the second respondent in service with 50% backwages. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had also submitted that the absence of the second respondent was also due to the confusion that had developed with regard to his transfer from Pattukottai Transport Corporation to the petitioner Corporation and the subsequent communications promising to take back some of the employees within the fold of Pattukottai Transport Coporation. Further, the petitioner Corporation had not properly considered the medical certificates submitted on behalf of the second respondent. When the petitioner Corporation had reinstated the second respondent in service on 22.6.93, based on the medical certificates submitted on behalf of the second respondent, no proper reasons have been given by the Enquiry Officer not to accept the other medical certificates submitted on his behalf. 11. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 19.9.2000, is in accordance with law. The petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the said award. The first respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusions giving sufficient reasons for the same. It is found that the petitioner Corporation had reinstated the petitioner in service on 22.6.93, after issuing a severe warning to the second respondent, accepting the medical certificates produced on his behalf. While so, it is improper for the petitioner Corporation to again issue a charge memo to the second respondent with regard to his alleged unauthorised absence for the period between 12.6.93 to 21.6.93. Even though the second respondent had participated in the domestic enquiry there is nothing to show that he had accepted the charges levelled against him, as claimed on behalf of the petitioner Corporation. Hence, the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 19.9.2000, reinstating the second respondent in service with 50% backwages is not liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.T. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR. 45230 1 cc to Mr.K.M. Ramesh, Advocate, SR. 44606 Writ Petition No.3684 of 2001 RS (CO) kk 18/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/