Allowed

Subramaniyan, v. the Management

Madras HC17 Sept 2021WP/8499/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that granted Rs.1,50,000 compensation to an employee dismissed without an enquiry. Finding the amount meagre, the Court enhanced it to Rs.7,50,000 including gratuity and directed payment within sixty days.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to Rs.7,50,000. Interest at 10% per annum if not paid within sixty days.

Subramaniyan, Vs the Management — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON 19.07.2021 DELIVERED ON 17.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

W.P.No.8499 of 2014

Subramaniyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Management, St. John's English School and Junior College, 2^nd Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.

¶10

The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records sequel to the impugned Award dated 05.12.2013 passed by the 2^nd Respondent in I.D.No.472 of 2010 and to quash the same insofar as it awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with backwages and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential monetary and service benefits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Azhakarasan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.M.Packianathan Easter

¶13

Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Award dated 05.12.2013 passed by the 2^nd Respondent in I.D.No.472 of 2010, insofar as it has awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with backwages and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to reinstate him with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential monetary and service benefits.

¶14

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

¶15

According to the Petitioner, he worked in the 1^st Respondent's School for nearly 27 years without any blemish. It is his grievance that, the 1^st Respondent verbally terminated him from service from 09.06.2009 without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the action of the 1^st Respondent/Management, the Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the 2^nd Respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.472 of 2010.

¶16

Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner examined himself as witness and marked five documents vide Exs.W1 to W5. On behalf of the 1^st Respondent/Management, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M10. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the dismissal of the Petitioner is illegal and directed the 1^st Respondent/Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the Petitioner herein.

¶17

For better appreciation, relevant portion of the Award passed by the Labour Court is extracted hereunder:

¶18

“ 13. vjph;kDjhuh; gs;sp jug;gpy; 3 rhl;rpfs; tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;fs;/ vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jpd; Kf;fpa thjnk. vjph;kDjhuh; gs;sp eph;thfpfs; ngr;ir nfl;fhkYk;. ntiyapy; bghWg;g [ ,y;yhkYk; ele;J bfhs;fpd;whh;/ eph;thfj;jpd; mDkjpapy;yhky; ntW gs;sp khzth;fis fphpf;bfl; tpisahl mDkjpf;fpd;whh;/ nfhil gapw;rp tFg;g[fs; Koe;jt[ld; khzth;fis fphpf;fl; tpisahl mDkjpj;J gzk; tR{y; bra;J bfhs;fpd;whh;/ ,jd; fhuzkhf mth; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh; vd;gJ rhl;rpa' ; fs; thapyhf bjhpatUfpwJ/ vjph;kDjhuh; gs;sp. kDjhuh; xU Kiw Kd;dhs; gphpd;rpghy; fpnt&hh; Fkhh; vd;gthplkpUe;J U:/10.000-? fsthoajhf bjhptpf;fpd;whh;/ kDjhuh; 27 Mz;Lfs; gs;spapy; gzpahw;wpajhy; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g [fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;. kDjhuiu gs;spf;Fs; tplhky; mtiu thr;nkdhf epakpj;J ,Uf;fpd;whh;fs;/ ep/rh/M/2 ia ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. kDjhuh; gs;spapy; ,lk; th';fp bfhLg;gjw;fhf khzth;fspd; bgw;nwhh;fsplk; gzk; nfl;L beUf;fo bra;tjhf ,e;j fojj;jpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy;. ,e;j fojj;ij vGjpa eghpd; ifbahg;gk; vJt[k; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy; mij ek;gj;jFe;j Mtzkhf ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; Vw;Wf;bfhs;stpy;iy/ bjh/rh/M/3 ee;jFkhh; vd;w bgw;nwhh; gs;sp eph;thfj;jpw;F vGjpa fojk;/ mjpy;. jd;Dila kfd; ,e;j gs;spapy; fphpf;bfl; gapw;rp bra;fpwhd; mtid j';fs; gs;spapy; nrh;j;jhy;. j';fsJ gs;sp fput[z;oy; gapw;rp bra;J. j';fs; gs;spf;F bgUik nrh;j;J jUthd; vd;gjhf Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,jpypUe;J kDjhuUila bra;if epU:gpf;fg;gl;ljhf jPh;khdpg;gjw;F ,y;iy/ kDjhupd; bra;ifahy; mjpUg;jpa[w;w vjph;kDjhuh; gs;sp mtiu gzpePf;fk; bra;J. 3 khj mwptpg;g[ rk;gskhf U:/21.000-?f;fhd fhnrhiyia kDjhuhpd; tPl;L

¶19

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

¶20

tpyhrj;jpw;F mDg;gpa[s;sJ/ mjid kDjhuh; th';f kWj;Js;shh;/ cldoahf kDjhuh; jdf;F nruntz;oa tU';fhy itg;g[epjpbjhifia th';fp jUk;go ep/rh/3ia mQqfp ,Uf;fpd;whh;/ eph;thfk; mjid tU';fhy itg;g[ epjp mYtyUf;F mDg;gp mtUf;F nruntz;oa bjhiffis bgw;Wf;bfhz;Ls;shh;/ kDjhuh; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpj;J cs;Jiw tprhuiz eilbgwtpy;iy vd;gJ bjspthfpwJ/ kDjhuh; 27 Mz;Lfs; gzpahw;wp te;jhh; vd;gJ ,U jug;gpDk; xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuiu gzpePf;fk; bra;jJ , aw;if epajpf;F g[wk;ghdJ vd;gjhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/ vdnt. kDjhuh; kDtpy; nfl;oUf;Fk; ghpfhu';fs; mtUf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fJ/ MdhYk;. kDjhuUf;Fk; vjph;kDjhuh; gs;spf;Fk; , ilna RK:fkhd cwt[ Kiw ,y;yhjjhYk;. vjph;kDjhuh; gs;sp kDjhuh; kPjhd ek;gpf;ifia ,He;Jtpl;ljhYk;. cah;ePjpkd;w kw;Wk; cr;r ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[f;fspy; Twpa[s;sij ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L kDjhUf;F kPz;Lk; gzp tH';Ftjw;F gjpyhf ,Hg;gPlhf U:/1.50.000-? vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; tH';f ntz;Lbkd;W Kot[ bra;J bjhHpy; jfuhiw gFjpahf mDkjpj;J gpur;rpidfSf;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ/

¶21

14/ ,Wjpahf. ,j;bjhHpy; jfuhW gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ kDjhuUf;F vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; gzp tH';Ftjw;F gjpyhf. ,Hg;gPlhf U:/1.50.000-? tH';fntz;Lbkd;W jPh;tk; tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j;bjhif ,y;iy/””

¶22

According to the 1^st Respondent/Management, as the employee committed serious misconduct and that, complaints have been received, having lost confidence in him, the Management verbally dismissed him from service. However, the Tribunal was generous in awarding compensation to him and hence, the same need not be interfered with.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record.

¶24

Admittedly, no Charge Memo has been issued to the Petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted. The Labour Court referred to Ex.M2 – a complaint Letter given by a parent, but, it has not been signed. Also, there is an allegation that, the Petitioner stole a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the Principal, but, the same was disbelieved by the Labour Court, as there was no police complaint to that effect. Though, it is not mandatory that, a police complaint need to be given, charges will have to be established in a domestic enquiry based on preponderance of probability.

¶25

After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court held that, the allegations made against the Petitioner/employee have not at all been proved. The Labour Court also observed that, there is no cordial relationship

¶26

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

¶27

between the 1^st Respondent/Management and the Petitioner/employee and that, the Management lost confidence on the employee and hence, instead of ordering reinstatement, it has directed the 1^st Respondent/Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the Petitioner/employee.

¶28

The Petitioner was born in the year 1958. He joined the services of the 1^st Respondent in the year 1982 and he was verbally terminated from service on 09.06.2009. The Labour Court passed the Award in I.D.No.472 of 2010 on 05.12.2013. By this time, the Petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation and as of now, he would be aged more than 62 years. Even assuming that, the allegations against the Petitioner are false, the question of reinstating him in service is not possible at this distant point of time.

¶29

However, the finding of the Labour Court that, instead of reinstatement into service, only compensation need to be given to the dismissed employee, suffers from perversity. When charges against the employee are not at all established, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that, the 1^st Respondent/Management has lost confidence on the employee, may not be correct. If the finding of the Labour Court is accepted, then, all the Labour Courts will start ordering compensation to the employees, instead of ordering reinstatement. Right of reinstatement into service is right to life, which can be deprived, if the charges against the employee are established based on a full-fledged enquiry. In the case on hand, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the allegations against the employee are false, as no proper oral and documentary evidence were marked on the side of the Management to prove the charges against the employee.

¶30

Since the Petitioner/employee has attained the age of superannuation and reinstatement is not possible now, only monetary benefits have to be extended to him. Assuming that, the employee is not extended monetary benefits, he has to approach the Labour Court for computation of compensation under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and for recovery of amount invoking Section 33(c)(1) read with Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also to prosecute the Management under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which will give rise to further round of litigation.

¶31

In view of the above, this Court finds that, the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is meagre and hence, enhances the same by awarding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) over and above Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Labour Court as compensation. The said amount includes Gratuity and all other benefits due to the Petitioner/employee. In toto, the

¶32

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

¶33

Petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as compensation. If the said amount is not paid to the Petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the compensation awarded by this Court will fetch interest at 10% per annum from the date of this order.

¶34

This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

(aeb)

¶39

To:

¶40

The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶41

+2cc to Mr.K.Azhagarasan, Advocate Sr.47707 +1cc to Mr.A.M.Packianathan Easter, Advocate Sr.47750

¶42

W.P.No.8499 of 2014

¶43

sv-I[co] srg 30/09/2021

¶44

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

Subramaniyan, v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramaniyan, v. the Management

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

The Management of Abt Parcel Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management of Abt Parcel Vs the Presiding Officer

The General Manager, Vs the Presiding Officer

T. Loganathan, Vs the Presiding Officer

A.Selvaraj Vs Phanind reddy, Ias.

M. Yamunarani Vs Kumaravel