IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.10.2008 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.1056 of 1999 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Dvn.I) Ltd., formerly known as Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. by its Managing Director, Villupuram ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Cuddalore 2. A.Ashokkumar ..Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award dated 30.6.1998 passed in I.D.No.126 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr.J.James For Respondent-2 :: Mr.T.Dhanyakumar O R D E R The petitioner is a state owned Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent, Labour Court in I.D.No.126 of 1994, dated 30.6.1995, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The Writ Petition has been admitted on 24.2.1999. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court directed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to be deposited to the credit of I.D.No.126 of 1994, whcih was in turn directed to be deposited at the Indian Overseas Bank, Esplanade Branch in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years and thereafter renewed for every two years. The second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ workman was permitted to withdraw the quarterly interest. Apart from this, the second respondent was also paid Rs.18,000/- by the said order. By the same order dated 20.4.1999, the petitioner Corporation was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- every month in terms of 17-B wages. Subsequently to avoid the 17-B payment, the petitioner Corporation reinstated the second respondent by an order dated 23.7.2003. 3. The charge against the second respondent was that he abused the Traffic Controller incharge on 13.5.1993 with filthy language and also threatened him to provide the route, which is from Chennai to Thittakudi and not any other route. When he was denied allotment of the said route, he made further abuse and was found in a drunkenmood. It was stated that because of his obstinate stand, the time table for operating the bus could not be followed and there was a delay in running the transport, which according to the petitioner was an irresponsible behaviour and subversive of discipline, an enquiry was conducted. After a full- fledged enquiry, he was given a second show cause notice and thereafter removed from service by an order dated 22.10.1993. 4. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, which finally resulted in the dispute being taken on file by the first respondent, Labour Court as I.D.No.126 of 1994. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the petitioner management, 14 documents were filed and they were marked with consent as Ex.M.1 to M.14. No oral evidence was let in by both sides. 5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement dated nil. In the counter statement, in paragraph No.7, it is stated that in case the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the workman was not fair and proper, they reserve their liberty to lead fresh evidence. However, before the Labour Court, the workman did not attack the validity of the domestic enquiry and confined his argument only regarding the exercise of power under section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. This has been recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned award. It was thereafter, the Labour Court went to the evidence recorded before the domestic enquiry officer. In paragraph 11, it came to the conclusion that the charges 1 to 7 levelled against the second respondent was not proved with any satisfactory evidence and the findings rendered by the enquiry officer was illegal. 6. The Labour Court also held that the charges against the workman was made by employees belonging to the rival trade unions and they were fabricated. He has also examined one Sriramulu, who was the Driver and also an eye witness to the incident to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prove the innocence of the second respondent. The Labour Court in paragraph 12 held that since the present charges have not been proved against the second respondent, there was no necessity to go into the past conduct, which according to the petitioner Corporation was not unblemished. It is in that view of the matter, the Labour Court by its award dated 30.6.1995 directed reinstatement with back wages. 7. Mr.James, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the Labour Court, the Corporation demanded a fresh opportunity to lead evidence in their counter statement and since the Labour Court recorded the enquiry officer's findings as perverse, it should have given another opportunity to substantiate the charges. 8. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the Management of M/s.Sundaram Motors vs. the Presiding Officer, 2nd Additional Labour Court and another, reported in 1987 II LLJ 48 Madras. In that judgment, Sathiadev J.held that the earlier Division Bench judgment, directing the employer to be given an opportunity, when the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry officer's findings were perverse, cannot be applied at all times. In paragraph No.17, the learned Judged had observed as follows: "17. The Division Bench decision relied upon by the Management having not laid down that there should be a third stage of hearing by the Labour Court after rendering a finding on perversity committed by enquiry officer, and when Management had never come forward to plead in this petition or at any earlier point of time that it wants to adduce additional evidence or is possessed of additional evidence, no valid ground exists to interfere with the impugned award." 9. In the present case, the liberty reserved by the petitioner in the counter statement filed before the Labour Court was only to lead fresh evidence, in case the enquiry was held to be not fair and proper. But, in this case, though the Labour Court held that it is going to confine itself only recording the perversity of finding, but it analyzed the entire evidence let in before the domestic enquiry officer. As a matter of fact, it established that the charges were not proved. 10. This is not a case where the finding of the enquiry officer was merely rejected on the ground of perversity. It is a case where there is no legal and satisfactory evidence to hold the workman guilty of the charges. Therefore, the decision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, without any orders from this Court, the petitioner themselves have reinstated the workman with effect from 23.7.2003. If the conduct of the second respondent is so bad, then the petitioner ought not to have reinstated the workman, pending the Writ Petition, since this Court has only directed the monthly payment till the disposal of the Writ Petition. This is another factor which can be weighed against the contention raised by the petitioner management. 11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that subsequent to the reinstatement, the second respondent has not changed his behaviour and continuously indulged in similar misconducts, that question need not be gone into in this Writ Petition. Since the petitioner Corporation is well armed with Certified Standing Orders, it is open to them to take appropriate action in case in future any misconduct is committed by the workman. 12. When the Labour Court has given an award by discussing the material evidence filed before the domestic enquiry officer, there is no question of interfering with the said finding by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Since the Writ Petition is dismissed, the second respondent is given liberty to withdraw the amount lying in deposit in Indian Overseas Bank as noted above. No costs. Ajr Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore + 1 cc to Mr. T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate SR No. 58651/08 W.P.No.1056 of 1999 SA(CO) SR/3.11.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/