High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Labour Court award dismissing petitioner for submitting forged documents to obtain bank loans. Court held repayment of loan did not erase misconduct and punishment was proportionate.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to 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.
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
K.Appadurai .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
III Additional Labour Court,
Milk Consumers Co-operative Society Limited, No.14, East Coast Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ or direction or order, more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned award dated 27.08.2014 made in I.D.No.173 of 2005.
For petitioner : Mr.B.Hari Babu
For Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar for R2
1
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.173 of 2005.
2
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
petitioner obtained a personal loan from the Indian Bank by producing a salary certificate issued by Secretary of the 2nd respondent society namely D.Kanniappan. The loan was sanctioned by the bank only after verifying the veracity of the said certificate, and the petitioner has also repaid the entire loan amount by way of monthly installments. Though, the management claims that the petitioner has obtained the loan on the basis of the fabricated documents, however, no complaint has been lodged by the management as to the said allegation. Further, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner during the enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted the report holding the charges as having been proved against the petitioner. Though, the petitioner had placed relevant documents in order to defend himself, the Labour Court without taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, had mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner, by way of the impugned award which is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this Writ Petition.
3
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
that the petitioner was dismissed from service for obtaining loan from Indian Bank Branch by forging and fabricating the documents of the 2nd respondent society. Though the petitioner claims to have given his explanation as to the charges framed against him, however, in the said explanation during the enquiry, he himself has admitted the aforesaid charges against him by stating that he had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- in his name and another loan of Rs.25,000/- in the name of one D.Ravindran who is one of the staffs of the Society with the help of the Secretary of the Society namely D.Kanniappan and the other namely R.Ravikumar, assistant of the Society. However, during cross examination in the enquiry, the said allegation was denied by the Secretary and the Assistant. Though, the petitioner was given one more opportunity to putforth his case, there was no convincing reply from him. Hence, the charges were proved against the petitioner. Only based on the said enquiry report, the Labour Court has rightly rejected petitioner's claim through the impugned award which needs no interference. Accordingly, he prays for dimissal of this Writ Petition.
4
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
5
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
27.07.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
NHS
To
The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
6
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
NHS
7
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
W.P.No.14376 of 2016
27.07.2023
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court award dismissing a workman for submitting forged documents to obtain bank loans even though the loans were repaid.
Whether the repayment of the loan amount erased the misconduct of fabricating documents which destroyed the trust reposed in the employee.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Appadurai
The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai
The Management of Thiruvanmiyur Milk Consumers Co-operative Society Limited
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
