IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 9..6..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 13102 of 1998 A. Saravanan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Chennai – 104. 2. The Management of Madras Port Trust Rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent dated 21.3.1997 made in I.D. No. 5 of 1992 in so far as it has negatived the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service, with back wages, with continuity of service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Ms. K. Parameshwari For Respondent 2: Ms. Dhonti Reddy for Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam O R D E R Heard the arguments of Ms. K. Parameshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dhonti Reddy for Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was working as Mazdoor in the Civil Division (Conservancy) of the Madras Port Trust. He was placed under suspension on 18.3.1983 along with another Mazdoor belonging to traffic Department, by name, V. Mohan. On 11.4.1983, he was given a charge memorandum alleging that he was in possession of a T.V. tubes stolen from a container. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and the said Mohan. It was tried before the XVI M.M. Court, George Town in C.C. No. 2927 of 1983. In the criminal case, the two persons were acquitted by judgment dated 16.5.1987. Even without waiting for the criminal trial, the enquiry against the petitioner was proceeded with and a final show cause notice 25.4.1984 was given to the petitioner and on receiving his explanation and after giving a personal hearing, he was discharged from service w.e.f. 26.3.1985. It is stated by the Port Trust that the petitioner pleaded guilty and requested for mercy during that personal hearing. 4. After the discharge from service and after preferring an appeal before the Chairman of the Port Trust, he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 10.5.1989, ie., nearly after a period of four years. The conciliation ended in a failure on 13.6.1991 and thereafter, the Government of India, by their order dated 21.01.1992, referred the dispute of the petitioner for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai, viz., the first respondent herein. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 5 of 1992 and notice was ordered to the second respondent Port Trust. 5. Before the Industrial Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, seven documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.7 and on the side of the second respondent Port Trust, 22 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.22. While on the side of the petitioner, he examined himself as W.W. 1, on the side of the second respondent, two witnesses were examined, viz., M.W.1 and M.W.2. The Industrial Tribunal, on an analysis of evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. It rejected the argument of the petitioner that there was no Presenting officer in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer himself put questions to elicit answers. The Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer seeking certain clarifications from the witnesses, was not improper and there was no necessity to appoint any Presenting Officer in an enquiry. On the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Tribunal held that the findings were supported by evidence. It also held that the objection by the petitioner that the enquiry report was not furnished along with the second show cause notice, was an after-thought. 6. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner alleged that another mazdoor, by name, Mohan, for whom separate enquiry was conducted, was found innocent of the charges and he is still in service. In this regard, the second respondent Port Trust had filed a counter affidavit denying the said averment. Ms. Dhonti Reddy also produced a copy of the order dated 01.4.1985 given to the said Mohan which reads as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "In exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 13 of the M.P.T. Employees' (Appointment, Promotion, etc.) Regulations, the probation of Shri. V. Mohan, Mazdoor (Shed & Wharf) is terminated with effect from 3.4.1985 and he is thereby discharged from service with effect from the above date." 7. The Industrial Tribunal also held that the outcome of the Criminal Case will have no bearing on the domestic enquiry conducted earlier and that the standard of proof in both the proceedings are different. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the reinstatement of the petitioner was out of the question as charge of theft was proved in the enquiry and so saying, the I.D. was dismissed by an Award dated 21.3.1997. It is against this Award, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Since both the parties failed to file all the material documents, the original records relating to I.D. No. 5 of 1992 were called for from the Tribunal and were perused. 9. Mrs. K. Parameshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, made three submissions: (a) that the acquittal by the Criminal Court on the very same issue will have a bearing on the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management; (b) that the co-worker Mohan was restored to service on being found innocent in a different enquiry; and (c) that there was no material in the enquiry to hold the petitioner guilty and the evidence tendered by Mohan (co- worker and eye-witness) was not taken into account. 10. Per contra, Ms. Dhonti Reddy appearing for Mr.R.S.Jeevarathinam, learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment relating to M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. v. S. Natarajan [1985 (2) L.L.J. 364] held that the outcome of the Criminal Case will have no bearing on the domestic enquiry. On the second issue, the learned counsel replied that the allegation made by the petitioner regarding reinstatement of Mohan was not borne out by records and she also referred to the counter affidavit as well as the copy of the order showing the discharge of Mohan on the very same issue. On the third issue, the learned counsel submitted that Mohan was a co-accused and his statement cannot be believed. It was also submitted that in law, only when a co-accused confesses implicating himself along with others, his evidence will have some relevance. With reference to the statement being obtained by coercion and the allegation made by the petitioner in his custody application, it has no relevance to the domestic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry and, therefore, in the absence of the petitioner pursuing such allegations before the appropriate forum, no credence can be attached to those allegations. 11. This Court is inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent. The sheet anchor of the petitioner's case regarding the alleged reinstatement of Mohan having failed, there is no further substance in any of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the standard of proof in a domestic enquiry is different than that of the criminal trial. In the present case, the petitioner was discharged even before the outcome of the criminal case. The other contentions with reference to appointment of the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer putting questions to witnesses, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were correctly rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. 12. In the light of the same, there is no infirmity or illegality in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. gri Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To 1. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Chennai – 1 2. The Management of Madras Port Trust Rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai 1 cc to Mr. R.S.Jeevarathinam, Advocate, SR.27592 bvn (co) dv/18.6. W.P. No. 13102 of 1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/