This writ appeal challenged an earlier High Court judgment that upheld a Labour Court's dismissal award by directing a nominal compensation of Rs. 20,000. The Court held the earlier judgment correct despite counsel's argument regarding the employee's age and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2015
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Writ Appeal(MD) No.1278 of 2015
R.Srinivasan
... Appellant
Vs.
Prayer:
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.04.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.6820 of 2004.
Prayer in WP(MD)No.6820/2004:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in ID No.1/2000 dated 16.10.2003 and quash the same as illegal and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and full backwages.
For 1st Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
This appeal arises out of an order passed in a writ petition, refusing to interfere with the award of the Labour Court
2
but granting a monetary compensation.
2.Heard S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent.
3.The appellant was employed as a driver, just for a period of about 1½ years from 25.07.1997. On 11.10.1998, the bus which he was driving was involved in a road traffic accident. A charge memo was issued on 12.11.1998, an enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service on 27.03.1999.
4.The appellant raised an industrial dispute. By a preliminary award, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. Therefore, both parties led evidence both oral and documentary before the Labour Court. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence let in by both the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct complained. Therefore, after holding the charge proved, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the order of dismissal.
5.Challenging the award of the Labour Court, upholding his dismissal, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD) No.6820 of 2004. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge, upholding the verdict of the Labour Court but directing payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Not satisfied with such an order, the appellant is before us.
6.At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned Judge could not have awarded compensation without interfering with the award of the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court, cannot normally be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if the Corporation had come up with a writ petition the appellant would have been in difficulty.
7.Therefore, we do not think that the order of the learned Judge could be found fault with especially at the instance of the appellant.
8.It is contended by Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge was in error in noting the age of the appellant. He produced a copy of the SSLC certificate showing that the appellant was born on 15.07.1958.
9.But this does not really tilt the matter, as we have stated the scope for interference with an award of the Labour https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is extremely limited. Without even interfering, the learned
3
Judge considered the case sympathetically and awarded compensation. We do not think that the appellant can ask for anything more. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
SMS
TE/SKS-RR/ 15/12/2015 : 3P/5C
Writ Appeal(MD) No.1278 of 2015 07.12.2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the writ petitioner's acceptance of the Labour Court's dismissal award by substituting it with minor compensation.
Whether the omission to note the appellant's exact date of birth in the earlier judgment constitutes a ground to undo that judgment.
R. Srinivasan
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli
V. Ramasubramanian
N. Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court