IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.19673 of 2000 A.Mohan Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2.The General Manager, The Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co., Ltd., Karamalai Bazaar P.O. Coimbatore District. Pincode : 642 130. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 14.06.2000 in I.D.No.291 of 1996 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.G.Sumithra For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravindran for T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent – Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.291 of 1996 dated 14.06.2000. By the impugned Award, the punishment given to the petitioner by the second respondent Management, viz., suspension for a period of 20 days was found to be justified. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 23.11.2000. On notice from this Court, the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 10.04.2006. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as a Laboratory Technician in the Karamalai Group Hospitals at Valparai. A complaint dated 09.01.1995 was given by one Muniammal, who was working as a Class IV employee in the hospital, stating that the petitioner had misbehaved with her on 08.01.1995. Based on the complaint, a show https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.01.1995. The petitioner denied the charges. A domestic enquiry was conducted on 13.03.1995. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of suspension for the period from 28.07.1995 to 16.08.1995. 3.It was contended by the petitioner that the Chief Medical Officer one Yuvaraj had a grouse against the petitioner and because of that, the present action had been taken. It was also contended that the enquiry was conducted by a person who was below the rank of the Chief Medical Officer and the charges were not proved in the enquiry and the punishment was not supported by records. 4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the dispute was raised by the Trade Union with which the petitioner was affiliated to. But after the reference was made to the Labour Court vide G.O.No.950 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.10.1996, the petitioner alone filed his claim statement. It is not clear as to why the Union did not file any claim statement. 5. The second respondent-Management had filed a counter statement. Before the Labour Court, with the consent of the parties, 8 documents were filed as Exs.M1 to M8. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that if the Chief Medical Officer was really prejudiced against the petitioner, even for the proven misconduct, the petitioner should have been dismissed from service. But such a contingency did not arise. The Labour Court also found that the evidence of Muniammal was acceptable and as she spoke the truth stating that the petitioner prevented her from talking and pushed her aside and also abused her in English and she could not comprehend the words. When he pushed her second time, he caught hold of her neck and hip and pushed her out. As she could not maintain her balance, she had to get support from the side wall. The Labour Court believed the evidence of the said witness and held that there may be some inconsistencies in the statement but on a overall consideration of the evidence shows that the petitioner had committed the said misconduct. Therefore, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. 6. This Court is unable to agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner. It must be noted that this is not a case where the Labour Court has power under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act to go into the proportionality of the punishment. Considering the fact that in a proven misconduct, the Management had imposed only a minor penalty of 20 days suspension, it is not a fit case where interference is called for. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 7. Subsequent to the passing of the order, Ms.G.Sumitra, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been dismissed subsequently and since no approval was granted, the Management had filed a writ petition against that order and the present dismissal should not affect that case. It is needless to state that every case is decided on the basis of the records placed. The findings rendered in one case will never have a bearing on the other case, as it may be emanated from totally different set of circumstances. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2.The General Manager, The Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co., Ltd., Karamalai Bazaar P.O. Coimbatore District. Pincode : 642 130. +1cc to Ms.J.Anandhavalli, Advocate Sr 15054 VS(CO) km/17.3. W.P.No.19673 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/