The Madras High Court dismissed the Management's writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Court found the award reasonable and held evidence regarding the dismissal of a deceased conductor was insufficient, refusing interference.
Writ petition dismissed. Award of the Labour Court affirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.04.2016
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
Writ Petition No.13661 of 2016
The Management,
rep. by its General Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ...Petitioner
Vs.
II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the first respondent in I.D.No.864 of 2001 dated 12.05.2015, and to quash the award passed in the said industrial dispute.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss
O R D E R
Heard Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and carefully perused the materials placed on records.
petitioner/Management inspected the bus at Pallavapuram. During the inspection, it was reported that 49 passengers boarded the bus in Tindivanam, and the employee was having tough time in controlling the crowd and taking advantage of such hectic situation, one of the passengers had sneaked in two flowers baskets from the window and hidden the same under the seat. The employee/workman was not aware of this, because of heavy crowd inside the bus. While the bus arrived at Pallavapuram, the passenger, who had hidden the flower baskets in the Bus, has taken the same and was getting out of the bus, and this was noted by the Checking Inspector, which resulted in charging that the workman was having excess amount of Rs.11, in his cash bag. The workman submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted, and the workman contended that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved, and a second show cause notice was issued to the workman, and not satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, he was dismissed from service on 05.06.1999. Since the workman was no more, his legal heirs, viz., wife and two sons, raised the dispute before the Labour Court challenging the order of dismissal.
4 The petitioner/Management contended that when the Checking Inspector examined tickets, he found one of the passengers carrying two flower baskets, without purchasing tickets for the luggage/flower baskets, and the workman never inspected that the passenger had paid Rs.50 to the workman for him as well as luggage, and the workman issued ticket only for the passenger, for Rs.31, and not issued ticket for the luggage, and therefore, the workman had pocketed Rs.19. Admittedly, the Inspector found Rs.11/- in excess in the cash bag of the deceased workman. The Management contended that the charges are very serious and considering the gravity of the charges, domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair manner, and taking into consideration of the circumstances, the workman was dismissed from service.
9 In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd
To
The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Madras HighCourt Campus,
Chennai.
1 cc to Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, Advocate, sr.23938
Writ Petition No.13661 of 2016
kji co
kra 10.05.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Madras High Court should interfere with the reasoned award of the Labour Court dismissing the Management's challenge.
Whether the disposal of the industrial dispute in favor of the legal heirs of the deceased workman was proper.
The Management, State Express Transport Corporation
The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai
D.Banumathi
D.Dineshkumar
D.Nirajini
T.S. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
