Dismissed

The Management, v. a.Paulraj

Madras HC10 Aug 2017WA(MD)/1103/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Madras High Court Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of a Labour Court order reinstating a conductor acquitted in a domestic enquiry. The court held that the High Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over service matters and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

The Management, Vs a.Paulraj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.A.(MD)No.1103 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015

¶4

The Management, TNSTC (Madurai Div -V) Ltd, Rep.by its General Manager, Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

¶5

... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.A.Paulraj,

¶7

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Building, Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 09.07.2014 passed in W.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2009 on the file of this Court.

¶9

Prayer in WP(MD). 4054/ 2009 :

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent herein in his proceeding in I.D.No.97 of 2001 dated 27.8.2008 and quash the same.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.A.Jeyaram

¶12

For Respondent No.1 : No Appearance.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

¶15

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ]

¶16

The unsuccesful Writ Petitioner is on appeal, challenging the order dated 09.07.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2009.

¶17

The first respondent herein was working as a Conductor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the appellant Corporation. On 11.03.1997, when he was on duty, the bus was checked by the Checking Inspector and it was

¶18

¶19

found out that the first respondent herein did not issue ticket, even though he collected the fare amount of Rs.2.40/-. The first respondent was issued with a charge memo alleging misappropriation. Domestic enquiry was conducted. The first respondent was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.08.1999.

¶20

This was challenged by the first respondent in I.D.No.97 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Madurai. The Labour Court by order dated 27.08.2008, partly allowed I.D.No.97 of 2001. The reinstatement of the first respondent was ordered with continuity of service, but without back wages. This was challenged by the appellant Corporation by filing W.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2009. The learned single Judge by order dated 09.07.2014, dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶21

4.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

The appellant corporation admitted that the woman passenger from whom the fare was collected and to whom the ticket was not issued did not support the charges during the enquiry. This means that there was no evidence against the first respondent herein. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court chose to set aside the order of dismissal. The learned single Judge took into account the fact that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be treated as appellate jurisdiction. The question of re-appreciation of the factual matrix does not arise. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed. We do not want to take a different view. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Building, Madurai.

¶29

km/dss

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KK/SV MMS/SAR1 /11.10.2017/ 2P- 2C/

The Management, v. a.Paulraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management, v. a.Paulraj

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

M. Murugasvari Vs Iffco Tokyo General Insurance

P.Shanmugadevi Vs the District Collector

S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Vs the Management

R.Ayyar Vs the Govt.of Tamilnadu

Uthayaraja Vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service

M.Tharujideen, Vs the District Collector