The High Court dismissed a Writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated an employee without back-wages. The Court upheld the award, rejecting the employer's claim of perversity regarding findings of misappropriation and addressing delays in filing the industrial dispute.
Writ petition dismissed; connected MP 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: 06.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.4740 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
2.P.Rengan
... Respondents
Prayer: The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to the proceedings in I.D.No.5 of 2009 dated 27.04.2010 quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.G.Govindan for R2 R1 – Court
O R D E R
The prayer in the Writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.D.No.5 of 2009 dated 27.04.2010 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2.As against the order of award passed by the 1st respondent / Labour Court in I.D.No.5 of 2009 dated 27.04.2010, the petitioner / Transport Corporation has come out with the present Writ petition. While the 2nd respondent was working as Conductor in the petitioner / Transport Corporation, he had been issued a charge memo for misappropriation of funds and after domestic enquiry, he was removed from service. As against which, the 2nd respondent raised Industrial Dispute and the same has been decided by the impugned award.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the mistake of the 2nd respondent even though has been accepted by the Labour Court, the finding in this regard that
2
the 2nd respondent has not done the violation, with an intention to misappropriate the fund of the Corporation and only mistakenly, he has done the same, is totally perverse and not on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner / Corporation. More over, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the 2nd respondent has been involved in such a violation on many occasions and in earlier occasions also, he was warned and even this factor has not been taken into account by the Labour Court and there is a finding to that effect that there is no proof to show that in earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent has acted like this by violating the rules. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all these findings would go to show that the first respondent / Labour Court has not considered the issue in proper perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that though punishment was given to the 2nd respondent pursuant to the domestic enquiry, after a period of 9 years only, the Industrial Dispute was raised and there was no acceptable reason given by the 2nd respondent to raise the industrial dispute belatedly. Though there is no limitation under the Industrial Dispute Act to raise the industrial dispute, such a huge delay could not have been accepted by the Labour Court without any proper reason. Therefore, on that score also, the impugned award is liable to be interfered with.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the findings of the Labour Court are based on the evidences adduced by both sides. In this regard, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would invite the attention of this Court to the findings of the Labour Court especially at paragraph No.7 of the order impugned, which reads thus:
“7.kDjhuh; ifahly; bra;antz;Lk; vd;w nehf;fj;njhL bray;gl;oUg;ghnuahdhy; ,d;tha;rpy; cz;ikahd gazpfs; tpguj;ij g{h;j ;jpbra;a tha;g;gpy;iy. Mfnt kDjhuh; ftdf;Fiwt [ld; gzpg[hpe;Js;shh; vd;gjhfnt jPh;khdpf;fntz;oa [s ;sJ. nkYk; ep.rh.M.20 Kd;gzp gjpt [fis ftdj;jpy;bfhs;Sk;nghJ kDjhuh; kPJs;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lfisg; nghd;W Fw;wk; vJt [ k ; bra;Js;sjhf ve;jg; gjpt [k ; ,y;iy. Mfnt kDjuhUf;F tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jz;lid mjpfk; vd kDjuhh; jug;gpy; TWtJ Vw;g [ilajhfnt cs;sJ. nkYk; kD kpft [k ; fhy jhkjkhf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gijf; ftdj;jpy; bfhz;L kDjhuUf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ntiy ,He;j ehl;fSf;fhd Cjpa ,Hg;ng nghJkhd jz;lid vd;gjhf jPh;khdpj;J kDjhuUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp bjhlh;r ;rpa [ld; Toa gzp tH; q;Ftijg; bghWj;J ,e;j kDit gFjpahf mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;jg; gpur;rpidfSf;F jPh;t [ fhz;fpnwd; . .....”
5.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would also submit that because of the filing of the Industrial Dispute belatedly before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent has lost back-wages even though he was directed to be reinstated into service. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, there is no infirmity in the order impugned herein and it requires no interference from this Court.
3
6.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
7.This Court in fact, has gone through the discussion and findings given by the 1st respondent / Labour Court in the award, which is impugned herein. The Labour Court after having considered the charges framed against the 2nd respondent as well as the evidences adduced by both sides, by way of marking documents, has ultimately come to a conclusion that the 2nd respondent has not intentionally done anything towards misappropriation of the fund of the petitioner / Corporation. In this regard, the said finding given by the Labour Court at paragraph No.7 of the order impugned as extracted herein above would disclose that the 2nd respondent has not been involved in any previous cases and also he had not done anything intentionally either to cheat or to misappropriate the funds of the petitioner / Corporation.
8.Moreover, because of the delayed Industrial Dispute filed by the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court after having taken into account the said delay, has rightly denied the back-wages to the 2nd respondent and it has only ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, for such a long delay, the 2nd respondent already has lost all his back-wages, even though he was directed to be reinstated into service.
9.Though this Writ petition was filed in the year 2011 this Court in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.4740 of 2011, has passed the following interim order:
“The present Writ petition has been filed by the Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Madurai Divsiion I) Limited, Madurai, challenging the award of the Labour Court namely, the first respondent made in I.D.No.5 of 2009 dated 27.04.2010.
2.In and by the said award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employee namely, the second respondent in the present writ petition with continuity of service, however, without back wages. As stated already challenging the said award, the Management has filed the present Writ petition. Now the employee has filed the present application in M.P.No.2 of 2011 for a direction for payment of last drawn wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Disputes Act, 1947.
4
3.Considering the submissions made by Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.C.Herold Sing, learned counsel appearing for the Management, I am inclined to made the stay absolute in M.P.No.1 of 2011 on the following conditions:
(i)The Transport Corporation shall pay to the employee last drawn wages from the date of filing of the Writ petition namely from 21.04.2011 till the end of June 2011.
(ii)The arrears shall be payable within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii)The Transport Corporation has to pay the last drawn wages to the employee on or before 10th of every month starting from 10th of July 2011 till the disposal of the Writ petition.
4.In fine, this petition is ordered.”
Therefore, as directed by this Court in the order referred to above, Section 17(B) wages is being paid, calculating the last drawn wages of the 2nd respondent, which is Rs.6,170/- per month. The said 17(B) wages is being paid to the 2nd respondent for all these 5 years without extracting any work from him.
10.Of late, this Court has come across many number of such cases where if any disciplinary action is initiated against the Conductor working in State Transport Corporation, the maximum punishment of removal of service is given, of course, pursuant to the domestic enquiry conducted by such corporation.
11.Invariably, all such punishments could be at challenge before the Labour Court and after considering the merits and demerits of each of case ultimately, the Labour Court would pass orders and by that time, long years would have gone. Thereafter, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, Writ petitions are filed invariably, almost in all cases where an award is passed in favour of the worker. If ultimately, these proceedings end in favour of the worker, the Transport Corporation have to pay a huge sum to the extent of several lakhs of rupees to each of such employee without extracting a single day work from them. In most of the cases, years together 17(b) wages are also being paid every month without extracting any work. In most of the cases, if backwages is ordered, a huge amount to the extent of lakhs of rupees had to be paid. If these losses incurred by the Transport Corporation is taken into mind, certainly the Government Transport https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporations would rethink their attitude towards such workers especially in taking disciplinary action.
5
12.In this regard, this Court wants to express the agony that the Transport Corporations run by the Government are already running under loss. When that being so, if in respect of each of the worker, who involved in disciplinary proceedings, such a huge sum is paid, that too without extracting any work from such employee / worker, it would be a waste not only for the Transport Corporation, but also to the state exchequer as most of the time, these Transport Corporations are bailed out by the State Government by poring huge money from the State Budget.
13.In order to avoid such contingencies, a time has come that State Transport Corporations should relook these issues by taking a policy decision uniformly, of course, in consultation with the State Government and if need be, the relevant service rule can suitably be amended, so that for each and every disciplinary proceedings, such a maximum punishment of removal of service of the employee can be avoided. In case if the employees are found guilty, pursuant to the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority can impose a punishment of fine or recovery of money, instead of removing the employee from service. If such punishment is awarded, without the maximum punishment of removal of service, these kind of litigations could also be avoided apart from avoidance of Payment of huge money by way of back-wages or 17 (B) charges without extracting any work from such employee.
14.With these observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
nbj
TO,
The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Madurai.
+1CC to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate Sr.No.1393 +1CC to Mr.Govindan, Advocate Sr.No.1372
GJM/BS/9.3.17-5p-4C
W.P.(MD)No.4740 of 2011 06.01.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted against the Labour Court's award finding the employee did not deliberately misappropriate funds.
Whether the delayed filing of the industrial dispute by the employee warrants quashing of the reinstatement order.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the award denying back-wages due to the employee's long delay.
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai
P. Rengan
R. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
