IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 28-02-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.5853 of 2006 J.Jeyakumar .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-600 001. 2.General Secretary Madras Port Trust Labour Union 7, Phillips Street, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Central Government Industrial Disputes Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shastri Bahvan, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.75 of 2003, dated 24.5.2004, passed by the third respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to give back wages to the petitioner for the period of suspension from 31.7.1997 to 12.12.1999, within the time frame work that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalanathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkataraman for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia (R1) R2 - NA O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 24.5.2004, made in I.D.No.75 of 2003. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had been working as a Gateman in the Port Railway Section of the Traffic Department of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai Port Trust. While so, based on the complaint made before the Kasimedu Police Station, the petitioner had been detained under the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabber and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The said fact had been informed to the first respondent by a letter, dated 23.8.1997, issued by Commandant Central Industrial Service Force, Madras Port Trust. Thereafter, the petitioner had been released from custody, on a conditional bail, on 25.9.1998. Since, the petitioner was under severe mental agony and as he was in depression, he had not intimated to the first respondent about his arrest and detention. 3. It had been further stated that the petitioner had been wrongly implicated in a murder case, in Crime No.N/2/1254/97, on the file of the Kasimedu Police Station. However, the petitioner had been placed under suspension from service, with effect from 31.7.1997, by the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, even before his arrest, on 3.8.1997. Since, the requests made by the petitioner, to the Traffic Manager of the first respondent Port Trust, to permit the petitioner to join duty, had been rejected, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority. Based on the legal opinion received, the first respondent had permitted the petitioner to join duty, on 13.12.1999, without prejudice to the departmental proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner. 4. In the trial proceedings, in S.C.No.367 of 1998, the petitioner had been acquitted on 3.2.2000. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner was an innocent person and that he had been implicated in the criminal case by some persons, with mala fide motives. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, along with a copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court, requesting the petitioner to grant backwages and incentive payment for the suspended period, from 31.7.1997 to 12.12.1999. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 21.7.2000, the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust had passed an order, dated 8.9.2000, ordering stoppage of increment for six months, without cumulative effect and further stating that the period of suspension, till the resumption of duty, would be treated as such and the payment of the amount already made would be restricted to that extent only and that the petitioner would not be eligible for any further payment. Thereafter, the said order had been confirmed by the order passed by the first respondent, on 13.2.2002. The subsequent representations made on behalf of the petitioner, by the Madras Port Trust Labour Union, had also been rejected by the first respondent. In such circumstances, an industrial dispute had been raised on behalf of the petitioner, before the third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in I.D.No.75 of 2003. The third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, by its award, dated 24.5.2004, had rejected the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had found that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It had been found that the petitioner had been punished by the management of the first respondent Port Trust, not on the ground that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case and as he had been detained under the Act, but on the ground that he had not informed the higher authorities about his detention in jail, immediately, thereafter, as per the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. The third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had also held that no appeal had been preferred by the petitioner or the Union of Employees challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had passed the award, dated 24.5.2004, made in I.D.No.75 of 2003, refusing to accept the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the petitioner, who was an employee in the Madras Port Trust, had been arrested and detained, based on the criminal case registered in Crime No.N/2/1254/97, on the file of the Kasimedu Police Station. The petitioner ought to have reported about his arrest to his departmental superiors, promptly, in writing, as per regulation 3(8) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. Further, he had committed a misconduct by his absence from duty, without obtaining necessary leave, from 31.7.1997 to 12.12.1999. Therefore, he had been kept under suspension, from 31.7.1997 to 12.12.1999. 8. Even though the petitioner had committed a serious misconduct, as per Regulation 4(7) of the said regulations, he had been given a lenient punishment by the management of the Madras Port Trust. Even though the petitioner had been acquitted of the murder charge, giving him the benefit of doubt, his absence from duty, without leave would entail the imposition of a serious punishment. As such, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months, without cumulative effect and further stating that the period of suspension, till the resumption of duty, would be treated as such and the payment of the amount already made would be restricted to that extent only and that the petitioner would not be eligible for any further payment. No reasons had been shown on behalf of the petitioner to reduce the punishment imposed on him. He had also submitted that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner against the punishment imposed on him, by filing an appeal, under Rule 22 of the Madras Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1988. 9. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that, even though a person had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquitted of the criminal charges, ultimately, based on the benefit of doubt having been given to him, the employer cannot be held to be liable for having kept him out of service during the period when he was under detention. 1) Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore V. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electicity Board, Himmatnagar, (Gujarat) and another [AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1801(1)] and 2) Union of India and others and Jaipal Singh (2004-I- LLLJ 431) 10. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 11. The third respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him since, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority had not been questioned in the representation given by the employees union. It had been found that the representation had been made only with regard to the payment of backwages to the petitioner. It had also been found that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not on the ground that he had been involved in a criminal case and that he had been detained under the provisions of the Act, but on the ground that he had not informed the higher authorities about his detention in jail, as per the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. 12. The order of the disciplinary authority, dated 8.9.2000, marked as Ex.W-7, clearly states that the punishment of stoppage of increment, for six months, without cumulative effect, had been imposed on the petitioner, under Regulation 3(c) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1987. Ex.W-6, which is a show cause notice, dated 22.6.2000, had been issued to the petitioner, under Regulation 3(8) of the said regulations. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he should not have been punished, as he had been acquitted in the criminal case, cannot be countenanced. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is due to his unauthorised absence, without leave, which is a misconduct, as per regulation 4(7) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regulations, 1987. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1.Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-600 001. 2.General Secretary Madras Port Trust Labour Union 7,Phillips Street, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Central Government Industrial Disputes Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shastri Bahvan, Chennai-600 006. 1 cc to M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate, Sr.No.14909 1 cc to Mr.M.Kamalanathan, Advocate, Sr.No.13836 Order in Writ Petition No.5853 of 2006 RSY {CO} TP/31.3.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/