IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.15188 of 2001 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Divn-III), LTD., Kancheepuram .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai. 2.A.S.Soundararajan. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records relating to ID No.457 of 1998 dated 02.02.2001, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For 2nd Repondent : Mr.S.Sathiamurthi ORDER The writ petitioner Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram division Kancheepuram has filed the present writ petition challenging the award passed by the labour court directing the second respondent A.S.Soundararajan to be reinstated in service with 75% of backwages. 2. The second respondent was employed as Assistant Tradesman in the petitioners Corporation. It is stated that when he was working as Assistant Tradesman he used to remain absent himself from attending his office from 21.01.1995 to 14.03.1995, 08.04.1995 to 11.05.1995, 16.10.1995 to 15.11.1995 without getting prior permission from the petitioner corporation or obtaining any leave for the said period. Since he was an habitual absentee frequently absenting himself from duty, he suffered punishments for seven times during the past period. Since he has absented from duty from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21.01.1995 to 14.03.1995, 08.04.1995 to 11.05.1995, 16.10.1995 to 15.11.1995 without any prior permission from any superior officer, charges were framed against him and explanation was sought for. The delinquent A.S.Sounderrajan also submitted his explanation without any plausible reason to condone his absence from attending the duty. The explanation offered by him, being not satisfied, domestic enquiry was conducted against the charge memo and he was directed to appear before the enquiry to defend his case. But the second respondent failed to appear even before the enquiry officer and took no effort to disprove the charges levied against him. In view of the fact that he has not appeared before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer, having left with no other option, conducted exparte enquiry and after analysing the evidence as well as his past conduct, the enquiry officer finally held that the charges held against the second respondent were proved once again. 3. Based on the report of enquiry officer, second show cause notice was issued to the second respondent herein and after the issue of the said notice, the second respondent submitted his explanation requesting the petitioner to drop all the proceedings stating that he had served the petitioner corporation faithfully for about 20 years and also mentioned that he did not receive any notice at any point of time regarding the domestic enquiry. Since he shifted his residence, the entire paper such as charge sheet, charge memo, reply given by the petitioner were lost by the second respondent. Therefore, he was unable to state regarding his case. The explanation submitted by the second respondent was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner management passed an order of dismissal dismissing the second respondent from service on 18.01.1997. It was a finding of the enquiry officer that the second respondent has not produced any material certificate to substantiate his defence for his absence by participating in the enquiry. Further, he did not participate in the enquiry. If the second respondent had informed the corporation about his absence, alternative suitable arrangements could have been made and some other tradesman could have been deputed to perform his duties. Hence, the second respondent has caused inconvenience to the corporation and it is also against the standing order under section 24 (6). The petitioner corporation justifies the award of punishment i.e., dismissal from service. The second respondent aggrieved by the order challenged the same before the first respondent/labour court. The Labour Court passed an award directing the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent who is the habitual absentee with continuity of service along with 75% of backwages. 4. Though para six of the award has noted the past conduct of the second respondent and the punishment inflicted by the petitioner management against the second respondent for not regularly attending the office, overlooking the past conduct of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent, the Labour Court has wrongly allowed the claim petition without even mentioning any single reason to allow the claim petition erroneously. The correctness of the award passed by the tribunal in award No.457 of 1998 dated 02.02.2001 passed by the first respondent/labour court is not challenged hereunder. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.Chandrasekaran submitted that the delinquent A.S.Soundararajan was a habitual absentee from duty and therefore he suffered 7 times punishment at the hands of the petitioner. Inspite of countless punishment, inflicted upon the delinquent he has not chosen to mend his conduct. As a result, when he once again went on long leave from 21.01.1995 to 14.03.1995, 08.04.1995 to 11.05.1995 and 16.10.1995 to 15.11.1995 without getting the prior permission from the petitioner corporation, he was issued charge memo. Charges were framed against him, explanations were sought for. The second respondent submitted his explanation. But however he abstained from participating in the enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry officer proceeded an exparte enquiry and found the charges proved against him. Once again second show cause notice was given for which the delinquent gave unsatisfactory explanation. An order of dismissal was rightly passed holding that he has caused loss to the corporation on the basis of standing order under section 24(6). The first respondent, the labour court without seeing any past conduct of the delinquent wrongly allowed the claim petition directing the petitioner to reinstate the delinquent that too with 75% of backwages. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent Mr.Sathyamoorthy attempted to support the reasons given by the first respondent/labour court. Though he read the entire award passed by the first respondent he was not able to pinpoint even a single reason for disallowing the writ petition in favour of the delinquent employee. Whereas, the learned counsel has pointed out several findings recorded by the labour court which are against the delinquent Soundararajan, who suffered 7 times punishment. In reply the Learned counsel appearing for the respondent was also not able to indicate any good reason to sustain the order passed by the labour court. 7. When the tribunal has passed an order, concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, his past service as well as the past conduct and having found that the second respondent has suffered seven times of punishment at the hands of the petitioner management, without even dealing with the findings of the enquiry officer, over looking those evidences on record, erroneously passed the award setting aside the enquiry officer's findings, and also directed the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent into service with 75% of the back wages. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioner management has challenged the award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.457/1998 dated 02.02.2001. Now the learned counsel for petitioner Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, brought to the notice of this court, that the second respondent is now working with the petitioner Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. In view of the fact the petitioner Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has taken the second respondents in service and since he has been serving with the petitioner corporation., this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. 8. This court at the time of admitting this writ petition was pleased to direct the petitioner management to deposit 75% of the backwages. Thereafter, the second respondent Soundararajan has moved an application before this court seeking permission to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. This court was pleased to pass an order permitting the second respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.80,000/-(Eighty Thousand only), while directing the petitioner to deposit 80% in Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Chennai. Subsequently, this direction passed by this court for deposit of entire amount of 75% has been complied with. Out of the 1,60,000/- deposited in the Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Chennai, a sum of Rs.80,000/- has been already withdrawn by the second respondent and the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- is still lying in Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Chennai. 9. The balance amount now lying in the bank shall be directed to be withdrawn by the petitioner corporation but not by the worker. It is made clear that the second respondent is not entitled to withdraw the balance amount. With this modification the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. pri/tsh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR No.45310 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Sathiamurthi, Advocate SR No.45319 KG(CO) SR/23.10.2009 W.P.No.15188 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/