Dismissed

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC30 Mar 2016WP/11326/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Labour Court Award dismissing an employee's dismissal claim due to medical absence. The High Court held the Award was cogent and reasons valid. Since Management failed to refer the workman to a Medical Board despite doubts, the Writ Petition was dismissed and the interim payment adjusted from terminal benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The interim payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be adjusted from the terminal benefits payable to the workman.

The Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 30.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.11326 of 2011

¶6

The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Petitioner

¶7

1.The Presiding Officer III Additional Labour Court Chennai.

¶8

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to I.D.No.653 of 2001 dated 27.8.2010 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Chandrasekaran

¶10

Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

2.This Writ Petition has been filed by the Management of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai, challenging the Award of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.653 of 2001 dated 27.8.2010.

¶12

3(i) The brief facts are that the second respondent was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation and it appears that during December 1999, he developed severe back pain, which he attributes was due to the nature of employment in driving the long distance buses. Therefore, the workman sought for assigning light duty and it is stated that for a short spell of time, the petitioner was permitted to drive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ buses in the Depot of the petitioner Corporation.

¶13

Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to drive long distance buses, which according to him aggravated his back pain and he was taking treatment in Government and Private Hospitals. That lead to his absence from duty from 12.12.1999, which resulted in issuance of a charge memo dated 03.04.2000. The explanation offered by the workman was not accepted by the Management.

¶14

(ii) Domestic enquiry was conducted, in which the respondent/workman had clearly spoken about his health condition and also produced the medical records before the enquiry officer. There was no cross examination done on the deposition of the respondent/workman. However, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved and based on which a second show cause notice was issued on 05.08.2000 and the respondent/workman submitted his reply on 31.08.2000 and the Management being not satisfied with the explanation, by an order dated 05.12.2000, dismissed the second respondent from service.

¶15

(iii) The said order of dismissal was assailed by the respondent/workman by raising a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No. 653 of 2001. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.W1 to W11 and on behalf of the Management one Mr. V.Paneerselam, was examined as M.W.1 and 17 documents were marked as M1 to M17.

¶16

(iv) The Labour Court, after considering the factual scenario recorded a finding that the workman at the earliest point of time reported that he was unwell and his health condition lead to his absence. That apart, the Labour Court noticed that before the enquiry officer, the workman had produced the medical records to establish that he was under intensive treatment in the Government Hospital and thereafter in a Private Hospital. The said fact was not denied by the Management, since the workman was not cross examined on that aspect before the enquiry officer.

¶17

4.In such scenario, if the Management had a doubt with regard to the veracity of the statement made by the workman regarding his health condition, they ought to have referred to him to the Medical Board. However, that was not done by the Management. Those aspects have been clearly highlighted by the Labour Court in the impugned Award.

¶18

5.Thus, in the absence of any perversity and as the Award passed by the Labour Court is cogent and the reasons are valid and proper, no grounds have been made by the petitioner/Management to interfere with the impugned Award.

¶19

6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is seen that pursuant to the interim order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granted on 02.02.2011, the workman has been paid a sum of

¶20

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). Therefore, , if any further amount is to be paid to the respondent/workman pursuant to this order, the said amount shall be adjusted from the terminal benefits which are payable to the respondent/workman. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpa
To
The Presiding Officer
III Additional Labour Court
Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.T. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.20277
+1cc to Mr.K.M. Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.20072
VSN(CO)
EU(13/04/2016)
W.P.No.11326 of 2011

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmana Gounder Vs The Chairman

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

P.Soundararajan, Vs The Commissioner

Minnalkodi, Vs Mrs.S.Anjadevi

Mrs.Sasikala @ Vs The Deputy Director of Health

Thangaraj, Vs The Chairman