Allowed¶31

K.Revathi v. The Management

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WP/18641/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd; domestic enquiry held fair and proper; II Additional Labour Court Chennai; ID No.281/2007; preliminary order 06.07.2012; award 08.05.2017; Section 33(2)(b) ID Act approval of dismissal; misappropriation Rs.2,04,820/-; monthly season ticket registers; Record Clerk dismissal; deceased workman; widow/dependent petitioner; remand to Labour Court; back wages till superannuation; terminal benefits; Article 226 certiorari; W.P. No. 18641 of 2019; WMP No. 17962 of 2019; M. Dhandapani J.; decided 09-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Order passed in ID No.281 of 2007 dated 06.07.2012 set aside; matter remanded to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, with a direction to dispose of the case expeditiously; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Revathi Vs The Management — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Preliminary order dated 6.7.2012 in ID. No 281/2007 of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai (holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper) and the Award dated 08.05.2017 in ID. No 281/2007 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and liable to be quashed, with consequential payment of back wages and terminal benefits from 17.4.2004 till superannuation. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in ID No.281 of 2007 dated 06.07.2012 and remanding the matter to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In order to give the petitioner (wife/dependent of the deceased workman) one more opportunity to prove her case, the Court was inclined to remand the matter back to the Labour Court.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (single Judge, M. Dhandapani J.), W.P. No. 18641 of 2019 (connected WMP No. 17962 of 2019), decided 09-04-2025: The petitioner, wife/dependent of a deceased Record Clerk of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited who was dismissed after a domestic enquiry on charges of failing to maintain monthly season-ticket registers and misappropriating Rs.2,04,820/-, challenged the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai's preliminary order dated 06.07.2012 in ID No.281/2007 (holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper) and the award dated 08.05.2017 dismissing the industrial dispute, seeking their quashing and payment of back wages from 17.4.2004 till superannuation along with terminal benefits. Noting that the workman had rendered 13 years of service, died after the award, and that his widow had come forward to prove the case by producing documents, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed in ID No.281 of 2007 dated 06.07.2012, and remanded the matter to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai within four weeks for expeditious disposal; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. The operative directions do not separately deal with the award dated 08.05.2017, and the Court did not itself adjudicate whether the charges lay against the workman.

¶1

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 18641 of 2019 AND WMP NO. 17962 OF 2019

1. K.Revathi

Petitioner(s)

The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation (chennai) Limited Rep by its General Manager Pallavan House Anna Salai chennai-2

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the concerned records from the II Additional Labour court Chennai, quash the Preliminary order dated 6.7.2012 in ID. NO 281/2007 Passed by the II Addl labour Court Chennai holding that the Domestic enquiry was conducted by the Respondent Management as Fair and Proper and The Award passed by the II Addl Labour Court in ID. No 281/2007 dated 8.5.17 as Illegal , arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent Corporation to pay the back wages and other benefits from 17.4.2004 being the date of Dismissal till the date of Superannuation and pay all the terminal benefits.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶14

For Petitioner(s): M/S.BALAN HARIDAS For Respondent(s): M/s. C. Gauthamaraj For Respondent

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the Preliminary order dated 6.7.2012 in ID. NO 281/2007 Passed by the II Additional labour Court, Chennai holding that the Domestic enquiry was conducted by the Respondent Management as Fair and Proper and the Award passed by the II Additional Labour Court in ID. No 281/2007 dated 08.05.2017 as illegal , arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently, direct the respondent corporation to pay the back wages and other benefits from 17.4.2004 being the date of Dismissal till the date of Superannuation and pay all the terminal benefits.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was working in the respondent Corporation as a Record Clerk. While so, he was placed under suspension and charge memo was issued. The respondent Corporation after conducting an enquiry, dismissed him from service. The petitioner's husband had raised an industrial dispute, questioning the enquiry conducted by the respondent corporation. The Labour Court passed an award by dismissing the industrial dispute. Subsequent to the award being passed, the petitioner's husband died. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who is the wife of the workman, has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner's husband is that he did not maintain the registers regarding sale and distribution of monthly season ticket, misappropriated Rs.2,04,820/- and cheated the management and caused loss to the respondent Corporation. The charges levelled against the petitioner's husband does not relate to his work. The receipt of stock of tickets, issuing the same, maintaining the stock register etc., is the work of the Superintendent, Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager. The aforesaid officers only receive the tickets from Central Office after the requirement of the depot and on receive it they will have to maintain the stock. As the sold the serial number of the ticket sold has to be entered in the concerned register and further enter the stock on hand and get approval of the same every day. All these things have to be done by the officers. While so, the Labour Court ought to have held that the petitioner is not responsible for any stock deficit and held that the charges will not lie against the petitioner's husband. Without considering the entire fact, the Labour Court has held that the domestic conducted by the respondent management is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the learned counsel seeks remand the matter back to the Labour Court to prove her case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after conducting enquiry, the petitioners husband was dismissed from service after getting approval from the authority in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Based on the enquiry conducted by the respondent, the approval petition was allowed.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶24

Due to the misappropriation of the workman in issuing the season ticker, canteen coupons and maintaining the stock registers, he was issued charge memo. However, he has not given proper explanation for the charges levelled against him by the Management. Further, when the matter was came up before the Labour Court, he has not taken any steps to give evidence which resulted in dismissing the petition, which is perfectly in order. Therefore, this Court may dismiss the writ petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

The petitioner's husband was working with the respondent and when he was in duty, he had sold the tickets and season tickets to the general public and misappropriated the amounts and also he did not maintain the registers properly. During trial, before the Labour Court, the petitioner's husband was given sufficient opportunity, but he has not taken any steps to produce the additional documents and not examined any co-worker on his behalf. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that he could not take any appropriate steps to disprove the charges and hence, rejected the petition which was filed by him.

¶27

Considering the fact that the petitioner's husband has rendered 13 years of service with the respondent Corporation. However, after trial, the petitioner's

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶30

husband died. The petitioner, who is the wife/dependent of the deceased, has come forward to prove her case by producing certain documents. According to her, without given sufficient opportunity and without any basis, the Labour Court passed a negative order, which is not sustainable one and requested this Court to remand the matter back to the authorities. In order to give one more opportunity, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Labour Court.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in ID No.281 of 2007 dated 06.07.2012 and remand the matter back to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Labour Court is directed to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

09-04-2025

¶33

rli

¶34

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No. 18641 of 2019

¶37

M.DHANDAPANI J.