IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 03-11-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1105 of 2003 The Management Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Rangapuram, Vellore-9, Now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram -Division-II) Ltd., Vellore-9. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.M.Shanmugam 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997, on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravibharathi For Respondents : No Appearance O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation, challenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997. 3. It has been stated that the first respondent was dismissed from service, on 29.3.96. Therefore, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.109 of 1997. According to the first respondent, he had joined in service in the petitioner Corporation, as a conductor, on 25.6.85. He had applied for leave from 21.7.95 to 9.11.95, on health grounds. The management of the petitioner Corporation had issued a charge memo, dated 14.11.95, containing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ three charges. The first respondent had submitted his explanation to the charge memo, on 29.11.95. Since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner Corporation had conducted an enquiry. Based on the enquiry report, the first respondent had been dismissed from service, on 29.3.96. 4. The main contention of the first respondent is that the exparte enquiry conducted against him was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and biased and the punishment imposed on him is harsh and disproportionate to the charges alleged against him. The petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed memo of objections. In the memo of objections, it was contended that the first respondent did not apply for leave from 21.7.95 to 9.11.95 and he was absent without any prior intimation or permission, from 21.7.95. 5. It was further stated that the departmental enquiry had been conducted in a fair and proper manner by observing the rules of enquiry and the principles of natural justice. The order of termination issued to the first respondent is legal and it was based on the enquiry report and on consideration of the first respondent's past services. The charges levelled against the first respondent was that he was absent, from 21.7.95 to 9.11.95, without prior intimation. During the absence of the first respondent, the day-to-day affairs of the management of the petitioner Corporation had been disturbed. Due to the activities of the first respondent, monetary loss had occurred to the petitioner Corporation. Further, the first respondent had failed to act as a faithful workman. The explanation, dated 29.11.95, submitted by the first respondent, was not satisfactory. Hence, a departmental enquiry had been ordered to be conducted against the first respondent. The enquiry had been fixed, on 18.1.96, for which the first respondent had been served with the notice of hearing, on 9.1.96. However, he was not present on the said date. Thereafter, the enquiry had been adjourned to 29.1.96, and the notice of hearing, dated 20.1.96, had been served on him. Again the first respondent had absented himself on the date of the enquiry. Therefore, the first respondent had requested the management of the petitioner Corporation to conduct the enquiry and he had further requested that the enquiry date may be fixed, on 12.2.96. Thereafter, a notice, dated 30.1.96, had been sent to the first respondent intimating that the enquiry would be held, on 12.2.96. Further, a letter of intimation, dated 5.2.96, had been served on the first respondent, on 9.2.96. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted, on 12.2.96. Since the first respondent had not appeared on the said date, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the enquiry officer had submitted his final report, dated 17.2.96. Based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice, dated 6.3.96, had been served on the first respondent. After considering the enquiry report and the past services of the first respondent, he was dismissed from service, on 29.3.96. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, dated 29.3.96, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute on the file https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the second respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.109 of 1997. Without considering the documents and the evidence on record, the second respondent Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the enquiry conduced against the petitioner was neither fair nor proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse. Consequently, the second respondent Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal, dated 29.3.96, directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, by its award, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the award of the Labour Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. He had further submitted that the second respondent Labour Court had failed to note that the first respondent workman had committed a grave misconduct by causing dislocation of the administration of the petitioner Corporation. The first respondent was absent from duty, from 21.7.95 to 9.11.95, without any prior intimation or permission, causing revenue loss to the petitioner Corporation. The second respondent Labour Court had erroneously relied on Exhibits W6 and W7, which were fabricated for the purpose of the case, in order to get over the hurdle of laches. The second respondent Labour Court had failed to appreciate the documents marked as Exhibits M.1 to M.20 to support the case of the petitioner Management. The enquiry conducted against the first respondent was fair and proper. The principles of natural justice had been followed during the process of conducting the enquiry. The first respondent, having received all the notices requesting him to attend the enquiry, had failed to appear for the enquiry. Therefore, an ex parte enquiry had been conducted, on 12.2.96, and the enquiry officer had submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and on considering the past records of the first respondent, the petitioner Corporation had dismissed the first respondent from service, on 29.3.96. The punishment imposed on the first respondent is neither arbitrary, nor excessive in nature. Hence, the award of the Labour Court, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997, is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Corporation had not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997. The second respondent Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner Management against the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent workman was neither fair nor proper. It had also been found that the principles of natural justice had not been followed during the enquiry. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the enquiry officer had proceeded with the enquiry in spite of the first respondent making several representations stating that he was unwell, both mentally and physically. In such a case, it was open to the petitioner Management to refer the matter to a medical Board to medically assess the condition of the first respondent workman and to find out whether he was fit enough to participate in the enquiry. On the other hand the enquiry officer had conducted an ex parte enquiry and had come to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the first respondent stood proved. 10. In such circumstances, the second respondent Labour Court had come to the correct conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the first respondent workman was arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 17.5.2002, in I.D.No.109 of 1997, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 29.3.96, and directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient reasons to set aside the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 17.5.2002, made in I.D.No.109 of 1997. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M. Ravi Bharathi, Advocate. S.R.No.61041. Writ Petition No.1105 of 2003 MRD (CO) GSK 17.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/