Partly allowed

Tamilnadu State Transport v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC29 Jul 2021WP/28644/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a Labour Court Award that reinstated an employee dismissed for misconduct. The Court held that the denial of back wages and increments constituted sufficient punishment. A direction was issued for the payment of pensionary benefits as the employee had reached superannuation age.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with direction to pay all benefits due under the Award including Gratuity and pensionary benefits.

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:29.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.NO.28644 OF 2008

¶6

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Coimbatore Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Coimbatore.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶10

N.Rajamanickam ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Award dated 28.02.2008 passed by the 1^st Respondent in I.D.No.335 of 2002, and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadanam For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.A.Deivasigamani

¶13

Petitioner/Transport Corporation has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 28.02.2008 passed by the 1^st Respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.335 of 2002.

¶14

The 2^nd Respondent/employee joined the services of the Petitioner/Transport Corporation as a Conductor on 10.10.1986. The charge against the 2^nd Respondent/employee is that, he received a sum of Rs.1.75 from a passenger and did not issue ticket to him. When the same was enquired by the Checking Inspector in the presence of the Driver, the 2^nd Respondent/employee readily accepted that, there is a mistake on his part.

¶15

The Petitioner/Transport Corporation came to the conclusion that, the 2^nd Respondent/employee attempted to misappropriate the collection amount, and thereby, issued Charge Sheet dated 01.08.2000 to him. As the explanation dated 18.09.2000 of the 2^nd Respondent was not satisfactory, a domestic

¶16

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

¶17

enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that, all the charges against the 2^nd Respondent/employee were proved.

¶18

Based on the Report of the Enquiry Officer and taking into account the past records of the 2^nd Respondent/employee, a second Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2001 together with enquiry proceedings and findings were issued to him, proposing the punishment of dismissal. As the explanation given by the 2^nd Respondent/employee to the second Show Cause Notice was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 24.04.2001 w.e.f. 28.04.2001.

¶19

Thereafter, the 2^nd Respondent/employee raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.335 of 2002 challenging the order of dismissal. The 1^st Respondent/Labour Court, by an order dated 28.02.2008, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Petitioner/Transport Corporation and directed reinstatement of the 2^nd Respondent/employee with continuity of service, but, without backwages and without increment from the date of termination till the date of the Award, and pay the last drawn wages from the date of reinstatement.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation contended that, the 1^st Respondent/Labour Court erred in suo moto deciding that, there is no specific charge in the Charge Memo, when there is no pleading and that, the Labour Court ought to have taken into account the gravity of the charges against the 2^nd Respondent/employee and confirmed the dismissal order. He also pointed out that, the employee's past records are very bad and being a Conductor, he ought to have issued ticket to the passenger for the amount received from him.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent/employee submitted that, the 2^nd Respondent did not have any intention to misappropriate the collection amount and it is only due to negligence. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the 2^nd Respondent/employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits.

¶22

In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation submitted that, the 2^nd Respondent/employee joined the services of the Petitioner/Transport Corporation on 10.10.1986 and he was drawing a sum of Rs.6,401/- as wages. He also pointed out that, in the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the 2^nd Respondent/employee has stated that, he was in a drunken state at the time of issuing tickets and hence, the order of dismissal issued against him, is perfectly valid.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶24

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

¶25

The Labour Court has held that, domestic enquiry has been conducted properly and that, the charge alleged against the 2^nd Respondent/employee that, he received Rs.1.75 from a passenger and did not issue ticket to him, is proved. However, the Labour Court held that, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the 2^nd Respondent/employee is excessive and that, the Petitioner/Transport Corporation has relied upon the past records of the employee in order to justify the punishment of dismissal from service.

¶26

Even though, the charge alleged against the 2^nd Respondent/employee has been proved, the Labour Court, invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the 2^nd Respondent/employee is harsh and directed reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service, but, without backwages and increment from the date of termination till the date of the Award, and to pay the last drawn wages from the date of reinstatement.

¶27

Undoubtedly, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the 2^nd Respondent/employee for non-issuance of ticket to a passenger to the value of Rs.1.75 is too harsh. However, the Labour Court has interfered with the same and ordered reinstatement and continuity of service, without backwages and increment. This Court is of the view that, depriving the benefit of backwages and increment from the date of termination till the date of the Award, is itself a major punishment for the charge alleged against the 2^nd Respondent/employee. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court.

¶28

As the 2^nd Respondent/employee had already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2017, while confirming the Award of the Labour Court, this Court directs the Petitioner/Transport Corporation to pay all the benefits due to the 2^nd Respondent/empoyee as per the Award, together with pensionary benefits, if any, i.e. Gratuity and the like.

¶29

In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

(aeb)

¶34

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

¶35

To: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, Advocate, S.R.No.36888

¶37

W.P.No.28644 of 2008

¶38

PL(CO) PM/22/09/2021

¶39

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

Tamilnadu State Transport v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu State Transport 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Selvaraj Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The K.461 Sengodagoundenpudur Vs the Labour Court

Tamilnadu Pollution Control Vs the Presiding Officer

The General Manager Vs the Special Deputy

V.Kumaravel Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management, Vs v.Ganesan, St.No.07CR248