The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal by the Transport Corporation challenging a writ order that reduced backwages in a Labour Court award reinstating a workman, holding that factual findings by the Labour Court were not perverse.
Writ appeal dismissed; costs awarded to no party; M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2015 closed.
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: 05.01.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Writ Appeal(MD) No.1475 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited, 2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002, Rep by its Managing Director
... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
2.R.Balachandran
... Respondents/Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.07.2014 made in W.P.(MD)No.6178 of 2007.
Prayer in WP(MD). 6178/ 2007 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT O0F CERTIORARI, calling for the records in I.D.No. 88 of 2000 dated 28/04/2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, and quash the same.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J )
This appeal is by the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited, challenging an order of the learned Judge, partly allowing their writ petition questioning the award passed by the Labour Court.
2.Heard Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.S.M.Mohangandhi, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.
3.The second respondent workman was dismissed from service pursuant to a domestic enquiry on 07.04.1999. He raised an
2
industrial dispute in I.D.No.88 of 2000. The Labour Court, by an award dated 28.04.2006, set aside the dismissal and directed the reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.
4.As against the said award, the management filed a writ petition. Finding no ground to interfere with the substantial part of the award of the labour Court, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition confirming the award of reinstatement but reduced the quantum of backwages. Fortunately, the workman has not come up with any writ appeal. But the management has come up with the present appeal.
5.The scope of interference with an award of the Labour Court under Article 226 is extremely circumscribed. The learned Judge found that according to the Labour Court, the charges could not be held proved. The Labour Court is the final Court with respect to issues of fact. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court.
6.The findings of the Labour Court were not demonstrated either before the learned Judge or before us to be extremely perverse or not based upon any evidence at all. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Judge confirming the findings of the Labour Court cannot be interfered with.
7.On the question of backwages, the learned Judge has adopted a very fair approach beneficial to the Corporation.
8.Learned counsel for the workman states that he is not challenging that portion of the order of the learned Judge depriving one portion of backwages. Therefore, the Corporation should be actually happy. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi, Advocate Sr.No.286
+1cc to Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi,Advocate Sr.No.8421 sms
AA/SK-SKN/22.01.2016/2p-4c
Writ Appeal(MD) No.1475 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015 05.01.2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 interference is warranted against the Labour Court award confirming reinstatement but reducing backwages.
Whether the findings of fact by the Labour Court regarding insufficient proof of charges were perverse or evidentially unsupported.
Whether the reduction of backwages quantum by the High Court Judge in the writ petition required reversal in appeal.
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai
R. Balachandran
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
N. KIRUBAKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court