The Management Vs the Labour Court — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management Vs the Labour Court — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All four writ petitions disposed of on stated terms: (i) award in I.D.No.35 of 1999 set aside; (ii) dismissal order against the Workman dated 25.02.1998 upheld; (iii) award in I.D.No.28 of 2011 set aside automatically and also quashed on merits; (iv) order dated 14.03.2011 in C.P.No.10 of 2008 set aside and the claim petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. By a subsequent 'for being mentioned' order dated 11.06.2025 the Registry was directed to issue a fresh copy correcting the petitioner's name in W.P.No.20066 of 2008.

Issue for consideration

Whether the domestic enquiry held into the charges under the charge memorandum dated 04.12.1997 was fair and proper. +4 more

Court's answer

The Workman was granted due opportunity in the disciplinary inquiry into the 1997 charges (he denied the charges in writing, Management witnesses were examined and documents marked, and he never sought additional documents or to record his own evidence); the belated claims in the Claim Petition being unsupported, the inquiry was fair and proper.

Ratio / Principle

The Labour Court's procedure in I.D.No.35 of 1999 was incorrect: it should first have issued a preliminary award on the fairness of the enquiry and only thereafter considered proof of the charges and proportionality under Section 11A; consequently the award dated 05.07.2007 was liable to be set aside.

Key takeaways

Remand to the Labour Court was unnecessary: given that the dismissal dated back to 1998 and the matter was before the Court in 2025, this Court itself addressed the remaining questions.ratio¶131
Charge No.1 (dereliction of duty as Packer at fair price shop No.7, leaving after signing the attendance register) was properly proved both in the domestic enquiry and before the Labour Court, on the salesman's testimony (M.W.1) coupled with his original statement in Ex.M.1; the Workman produced no evidence of any oral permission to abstain.ratio¶138

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), common order dated 04.03.2025 (orders reserved 29.01.2025; neutral citation 2025:MHC:592) disposing W.P.Nos.20066/2008, 24804/2012, 26640/2013 and 33968/2013 between the Management of Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. and workman G. Ramakrishnan. FIRST DISMISSAL (1997 charge memorandum dated 04.12.1997: dereliction of duty as Packer at PDS fair price shop No.7, and assault on salesman A.M.Ramalingam and the cashier): dismissal of 1998; Labour Court award in I.D.No.35 of 1999 (dated 05.07.2007) found the assault charge unproven and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Court held (a) the Labour Court erred procedurally in not issuing a preliminary award on enquiry-fairness before considering proof of charge and Section 11A proportionality, making the award liable to be set aside, but no remand was needed as the Court answered the questions itself; (b) the domestic enquiry was fair and proper — due opportunity was given; (c) Charge No.1 was proved (M.W.1's testimony with Ex.M.1); (d) the standard of proof in a disciplinary enquiry is preponderance of probability, so want of hospital records or criminal-case outcome did not invalidate the charge, and Rathina Sababathy had been examined (M.W.2; Ex.M.4), rendering the contrary finding perverse; (e) a Labour Court may revisit enquiry-stage findings only for no evidence or fundamentally flawed assessment; (f) the charges being grave (packer abandoning commodity distribution; violence), dismissal was proportionate — the dismissal was UPHELD and the first award SET ASIDE. SECOND DISMISSAL (dismissal order dated 28.02.2011 after charge memoranda of 27.01.2010 and 16.08.2010 on movement-duty dereliction, misbehaviour, and wrongful acquisition of an Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) ration card by furnishing false information): the award in I.D.No.28 of 2011 dated 06.06.2013 stood automatically set aside with the first award, and was additionally quashed on merits — the Labour Court's view that an off-duty 'civil law' violation cannot ground dismissal was rejected as completely erroneous for a co-operative society employee; wrongful AAY-card acquisition warrants dismissal as cheating the Government and depriving a poor beneficiary of food. The consequential computation order dated 14.03.2011 in C.P.No.10 of 2008 was set aside in its entirety and C.P.No.10 of 2008 dismissed. Writs disposed of without costs; connected M.Ps closed. Addendum ('for being mentioned') dated 11.06.2025: Registry to reissue the order correcting the petitioner's name in W.P.No.20066 of 2008 to 'The Management, Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketting Society Limited, rep. by its Special Officer'.

2025:MHC:592

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 29.01.2025

ORDERS DELIVERED ON : 04.03.2025

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014

W.P.No.20066 of 2008:

The Management of Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 001. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore. 2.G.Ramakrishnan ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent relating to the impugned award dated 05.07.2007 in I.D.No.35 of 1999 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam for Ms.P.Jebamary For the Respondents : Mr.B.Singaravelu for R2 for R1 – Labour Court

Page No.1/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

W.P.No.24804 of 2012:

The Special Officer / The Management of Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 001.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.G.Ramakrishnan 2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent relating to the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 in C.P.No.10 of 2008 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam for Ms.P.Jebamary For the Respondents : Mr.B.Singaravelu for R1 for R2 – Labour Court

W.P.No.26640 of 2013:

G.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Special Officer / The Management Chidambaram Agricultural Producer Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. Chidambaram, Chidambaram Taluk Cuddalore District – 608 001.

2.The Presiding Officer

Page No.2/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

Labour Court, Cuddalore.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 14.03.2011 made in C.P.No.10 of 2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Cuddalroe, the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same insofar as it is against the petitioner.

For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Singaravelu

For the Respondents : Mr.R.Arumugam for Ms.P.Jebamary for R1 For R2 – Labour Court

W.P.No.33968 of 2013:

The Management of Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 001.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.G.Ramakrishnan 2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent relating to the impugned award dated 06.06.2013 in I.D.No.28 of 2011 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

Page No.3/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam for Ms.P.Jebamary For the Respondents : Mr.B.Singaravelu for R1 for R2 – Labour Court

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions are connected and are between the Management of

Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-operative Sales Society Limited and

the Workman viz., G.Ramakrishnan , as such are taken up and disposed of by way of this common order.

The petitioner was employed as a Packer in the Management. The Management's activity involves operating the fair price shops under the Public Distribution System. In 1997, while the petitioner was working as a Packer at fair price shop No. 7 in Chidambaram, certain allegations were made against him that included two charges. A charge memorandum dated 04.12.1997 was issued against him. The first charge against the Workman was that he was not fulfilling his duties and responsibilities. The public distribution system and the distribution of essential commodities were affected due to his actions. The statement of

Page No.4/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

imputation of misconduct explained that even though he was working as a Packer at fair price shop No. 7, he would go to the shop, sign the attendance, and then would never actually perform his duties. Specifically, the period between 17.08.1997 and 02.09.1997 was highlighted. The salesman at the fair price shop provided a clear statement to this effect.

The second charge against the Workman is that on 03.09.1997, he went to fair price shop No. 13 and misbehaved with the salesman of that shop, A.M.Ramalingam , and attacked him, disrupting the distribution of essential commodities in the said shop under the public distribution system. On the same day, he went to the head office, where A.M. Ramalingam was present, and again assaulted him, misbehaved, threatened him, used offensive language, and also attacked the cashier. Furthermore, the Workman prevented them from performing their lawful duties. A police complaint was filed regarding these incidents. The statement of imputation of misconduct provides further details about the said charge.

The workman denied the charges. He alleges that there was a local law

Page No.5/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

and order problem involving rowdies. The petitioner, a resident of a specific location near Draupathi Amman Street, faced a grave threat to his life due to the involvement of two local gangs. Consequently, he sought a transfer to another shop. The management had orally permitted the petitioner to avoid the fair price shop No. 7 and instead directed him to work wherever needed. More specifically, the petitioner was asked to assist in other shops where kerosene was being distributed. Under these circumstances, anticipating a transfer, he did not attend duty at fair price shop No. 7.

As far as the second charge is concerned, he contends that he never attacked the salesman or misbehaved with the cashier. In the evening, in the head office, he only accosted them for not disbursing the lawful benefits due to a retired employee, and that too in respectful language. Enraged by this, a false charge was framed against him.

Thereafter, the Management appointed an enquiry officer. In the domestic enquiry, to prove the charges, the Management examined its witness and marked Exhibits M.1 to M.6 through him. Subsequently, no witnesses were

Page No.6/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

examined on behalf of the delinquent. By an enquiry report dated 09.04.1998, the domestic enquiry officer concluded that both charges had been proven. Following this, a second show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner was provided with a personal hearing. Consequently, on 23.05.1998, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised a dispute, but conciliation failed. The claim filed by the petitioner under Section 2 (A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was registered as I.D.No.35 of 1999.

The Workman contends that the domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper. He was not allowed to engage a defense assistant during the enquiry. The domestic enquiry officer did not permit the Workman to record his witnesses. No adequate opportunity was provided to cross-examine the other witnesses. Copies of the statements were not given in advance. Therefore, the Workman requested that the punishment be revoked and that he be reinstated with all benefits.

The Management resisted the claim. The charges were reiterated in the counter statement. It is also stated that the Workman duly participated in the inquiry as per due procedure. The Workman did not raise any objections during

Page No.7/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

the inquiry. Furthermore, it is specifically pleaded in paragraph No. 8 of the counter statement that if the Labour Court concludes that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper, the Management should be given an opportunity to prove the charges before the Court. With the above pleadings, when the Labour Court took up the matter for inquiry, the Workman examined himself as W.W.1. No documents were submitted on his behalf. On behalf of the Management, Anbarasan was examined as M.W.1, Rathina Sabapathy was examined as M.W.2, and Ramalingam was examined as M.W.3. Exhibits M.1 to M.3 were also submitted. The Labour Court thereafter considered the case of the parties.

Regarding charge No. 2, the Labour Court found that the evidence of how the individuals were injured was not substantiated by hospital records. Additionally, the outcome of the criminal complaint alleged to have been filed was unclear. The Labour Court noted that the Management could have at least examined Murugan, Chinnadurai, and Janardhanan , who were present at the scene. Since none of this was pursued by the Management, particularly in light of the allegations against the other two employees, Janardhanan and Elangovan , who were also said to have participated in the attack, and given that no action

Page No.8/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

was taken against them, the Court determined that the charge was not proven. Furthermore, the Labour Court ruled that there was no evidence against the Workman. Subsequently, the Labour Court found that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and all other benefits, and ordered the Claim Petition accordingly. The Management has filed Writ Petition No. 20066 of 2008, challenging the award dated 05.07.2007 made in I.D. No. 35 of 1999.

Pending the Writ Petition, and without prejudice to its contentions regarding the payment of 17 B wages, the Management allowed the Workman to resume duty. Consequently, on 06.11.2008, the Workman returned to work. However, on 27.01.2010, upon discovering that the Workman had again committed misconduct, a charge memorandum was issued containing two charges. The first charge against the Workman was that while he was assigned to movement duty, he failed to attend. The statement of imputation of misconduct explained that when the petitioner was put in charge of movement duty, he was supposed to accompany the lorry to various locations from the godown. However, after signing the respective documents, instead of going in the lorry, the Workman would leave after signing the invoices. A specific instance

Page No.9/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

involving lorry No.TN TCG 6898 on 12.01.2010 was also cited.

The second charge against the Workman was that he never heeded the advice and orders of his coworkers and misbehaved with them. The statement of imputation of misconduct mentions an incident on 12.01.2010, where he refused to obey the orders of the Special Officer and also verbally abused him in front of the other workmen. Again, on 16.08.2010, yet another charge memorandum was issued, leveling two charges against the Workman. The first charge was that, while he was on duty, he misused his position, furnished false information, and, by deceiving the Government, obtained an Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card, causing a loss to the Government. The details of the charge were also provided in the statement of imputation of misconduct.

The second charge against him was that he had threatened co-workers, claiming he would file false complaints against them and attempting to extort money from them. A common domestic inquiry was held, but the workman did not participate. However, he requested a change of the inquiry officer. Even after the officer was changed, the workman again requested a change of the newly

Page No.10/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

appointed officer. Subsequently, the domestic inquiry proceeded, with the management examining its Assistant Manager and marking the relevant documents. The workman did not present any evidence and never participated in the inquiry. Following this, the domestic inquiry officer considered the oral and documentary evidence presented by the management. The management examined five witnesses. The inquiry officer took into account the evidence from S. Tamilvanan, R. Balamurugan, K. Kabilar, K. Veerasamy , and K. Jayapandian, the management witnesses, along with the statements related to nine other employees during the inquiry, and concluded that the charges were proven. When a second show cause notice was issued, the workman again requested time. Subsequently, on 10.06.2010, the workman submitted an explanation. The management did not accept the explanation and issued a dismissal order on 28.02.2011.

Meanwhile, based on the earlier award and claiming all arrears and other benefits, the Workman filed C.P. No. 10 of 2008, which was partly allowed in favor of the Workman. In response to the dismissal order dated 28.02.2011, the Workman raised a dispute once again. The conciliation failed. Subsequently,

Page No.11/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

the claim petition filed by the Workman was taken on record as I.D. No. 28 of 2011.

The Workman claims that no proper opportunity was provided during the domestic enquiry. He requested that a preliminary award be issued declaring that the domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper, and subsequently ordered reinstatement with full back wages and all other benefits. The allegations in the claim statement were denied. The Management asserts that regarding the second charge memorandum, the Workman did not provide any explanation and did not participate in the enquiry. Furthermore, the Workman did not utilize the appeal remedy available to him through the department against the dismissal order.

With the pleadings mentioned above, the Labour Court proceeded for enquiry in the matter. No oral evidence was let in. Exhibits W.1 to W.34 were presented on behalf of the Workman, while exhibits M.1 to M.26 were marked on behalf of the Management.

The Labour Court considered the case of the parties and held that the

Page No.12/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

Management's witnesses were not examined in the presence of the Workman, who was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine them. The domestic inquiry was neither fair nor proper, leading the Labour Court to issue a preliminary award to that effect. Subsequently, the parties presented evidence. The Workman testified as W.W.1, and exhibits W.1 to W.9 were marked. On behalf of the Management, nine witnesses were examined, and exhibits M.1 to M.9 were marked. The Labour Court determined that the first charge was not substantiated by any direct witnesses or documentary evidence. Regarding the charge related to the AAY ration card, the Labour Court found that the card was ultimately canceled. It concluded that when an employee violates Civil Law outside of employment, dismissal should not be imposed. Therefore, it directed the reinstatement of the Workman with back wages and all other benefits.

Aggrieved by the first award made in I.D. No. 35 of 1999, the management has filed W.P. No. 20066 of 2008. Aggrieved by the award in I.D.No.28 of 2011, the Management has filed W.P.No.33968 of 2013. In addition, regarding the portion of the order that partly allows the Claim Petition of the Workman in C.P.No.10 of 2008, the Management filed W.P.No.24804 of

Page No.13/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

Concerning the partial disallowance of the Workman's claim in the order dated 14.03.2011 made in C.P.No.10 of 2008, the Workman has filed W.P.No.26640 of 2013.

Heard, Mr.R.Arumugam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management; Mr.B.Singaravelu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Workman.

Mr. R. Arumugam, the learned counsel, takes this Court through the charges and the evidence on record with reference to the first charge memorandum and the Labour Court's award. He submits on behalf of the management that, regarding charge no. 1, the Labour Court made no finding at all. Concerning charge no. 2, the Labour Court noted that five employees were present during the alleged assault and that the management could have examined at least one of them. However, the Labour Court failed to acknowledge that Rathinasababathy, one of the employees, was indeed examined, as noted by the Labour Court itself. Therefore, the Labour Court's award is perverse. Once the dismissal order is set aside, there is no need to consider the merits of the second

Page No.14/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

award, and the order made in the Computation Petition is also liable to be set aside.

Even with reference to the second award, the learned counsel, by pointing out the charges and the evidence on record, would submit that the Labour Court's award is perverse. Firstly, the preliminary award was also erroneous since it was the workman who, on his own volition, chose not to participate in the enquiry. At some point, the workman stated that management could do whatever they wanted and that he was not even claiming employment. He submits that the workman has always been the president of a political party, engaged in political activities, and has never performed any work. The Labour Court repeatedly granted him reliefs that were uncalled for. Additionally, when the workman, who is a packer in the Public Distribution System, obtains a ration card by providing false information under the AAY scheme and receives free rice meant for unemployed poor people, the Labour Court erred in asserting that dismissal was uncalled for due to the violation of civil law.

Per contra , the learned counsel representing the Workman submits that

Page No.15/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

the petitioner’s political activities were not substantiated. The Labour Court properly assessed the evidence in the first award. The Management failed to substantiate the charges by presenting adequate witnesses. In any case, the Workman was reinstated to service, and the second disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the only question is whether the initiation of the second disciplinary proceedings against the Workman was appropriate. The Labour Court found that the domestic inquiry was neither fair nor proper. Subsequently, it exercised its authority under Section 11A and, even taking into account the evidence presented by the management, concluded that the charges were not adequately proven. Furthermore, considering that the alleged ration card had also been canceled and was not directly related to his employment, the Labour Court passed the award. Consequently, the awards passed by the Labour Court in both industrial disputes are valid and should not be interfered with by this Court. Once the Labour Court's awards are deemed correct, the Labour Court should not have disallowed a portion of the claim in the Claim Petition, and the Workman is entitled to all the benefits specifically granted in the award. Therefore, the Workman's Writ Petition must be allowed.

Page No.16/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

I have considered the opposing submissions presented by both sides

and examined the relevant records of the case.

Firstly, regarding the first charge memorandum dated 04.12.1997, it is

evident that two charges were leveled against the Workman. The Workman participated in the enquiry. The management examined its witnesses and marked nine documents. Based on this, the domestic enquiry officer issued his findings. The Workman contended that the domestic enquiry was neither fair nor proper, while the management argued that even if the court finds the domestic enquiry unfair, they are willing to present evidence. In such a scenario, the proper procedure for the Labour Court would have been to issue a preliminary finding regarding the fairness of the enquiry by passing a preliminary award. Only thereafter should the court have considered the other two questions: the proof of the charge and the proportionality of the punishment under Section 11A. This exercise was not conducted by the Labour Court, and the procedure adopted by the Labour Court in directly considering the entire issue together was incorrect; therefore, the award dated 05.07.2007 in I.D.No.35 of 1999 is liable to be set aside. However, at this stage, the matter need not be remitted back to the Labour

Page No.17/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

Court, considering that the dismissal order of the Workman dates back to 1998 and we are now in the year 2025, this Court itself can address the questions.

The first question to be determined is whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper? The Workman's claim is that he was not given an opportunity to engage a defense assistant, his evidence was not recorded by the domestic enquiry officer, and he was not provided with the relevant documents. It is evident that the Workman has offered an explanation denying the charges. Subsequently, the Management witnesses were examined, and the documents were marked. The Workman never submitted any petition requesting additional documents. Furthermore, it was not his position before the domestic enquiry officer that he wished to record his evidence and that this opportunity was denied to him. Therefore, the belated claims made in the Claim Petition are unsupported by any assertions made during the domestic inquiry. Consequently, I hold that the Workman was granted due opportunity and that the disciplinary inquiry was fair and proper.

Regarding the merits, the Labour Court entirely failed to consider

Page No.18/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

charge No. 1. In fact, during the domestic inquiry, appropriate witnesses were examined. Mr. Anbazhagan , the salesman at the specific fair price shop, stated that the workman never attended duty and would leave after signing the attendance register. Therefore, the Management fulfilled its burden.

The Workman's explanation states that Management only orally permitted him not to attend duty at the specified fair price shop and allowed him to report to another fair price shop. If this is the Workman's assertion, he did not present any evidence to prove the same. Before the Labour Court, the aforementioned Anbarasan was examined as M.W.1. The Workman chose not to summon anyone from Management who granted him the oral permission for examination. Therefore, Charge No. 1 against the Workman was properly proved, both in the domestic inquiry and before the Labour Court. Additionally, ample evidence regarding this charge existed before the Labour Court, including M.W.1’s oral testimony coupled with the original statement provided by him in Ex.M.1.

Regarding the second charge, the Labour Court found that the hospital

Page No.19/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

records were not produced. Additional details regarding the status of the criminal case were not presented, and the third point was that one of the four present employees could have also been examined to substantiate the charge. Firstly, the assertion that one of the four employees— Rathina Sababathy, Murugan, Chinnadurai, and Janardhanan —could have been examined, and the fact that they were not examined was factually incorrect. Rathina Sababathy was examined as M.W.2 before the Labour Court. Additionally, in the domestic enquiry, the statement given by Rathina Sababathy was properly marked as exhibit M.4. Thus, the finding regarding this is perverse. Further, the standard of proof required in a disciplinary enquiry is preponderance of probability. Therefore, the Labour Court, without taking this into account, relied on the lack of hospital records pertaining to the injury and the non-production of criminal case records to conclude that the charge was unproven. This conclusion is legally incorrect as the standard is not proof beyond doubt.

The Labour Court should have considered that in a domestic enquiry, particularly when the charge is substantiated during the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court can intervene only in cases of no evidence or if the assessment by

Page No.20/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

the domestic enquiry officer or disciplinary authority is fundamentally flawed. In this instance, there was sufficient evidence on record concerning the Workman's misconduct.

Now, regarding the question of proportionality of punishment, it is evident that the Workman never performed his duties properly and was consistently preoccupied with his political activities. The fact that, even after reinstatement in lieu of 17B wages, he was again involved in similar misconduct —specifically, failing to perform his job and leaving the work site after signing the invoices/attendance register—suggests a concerning attitude. Following the second award passed, in lieu of 17B wages, the Workman was instructed to report for duty in 2013, yet he failed to do so. This conduct indicates that the Workman was hardly invested in his employment and was more focused on other pursuits. The gravity of the charge is apparent. In a fair price shop, the salesman is responsible solely for billing, while the packer must disburse the essential commodities. The public could face significant consequences if the packer leaves work after signing the attendance register. This charge by itself is serious. Additionally, the second charge pertains to violence: he physically assaulted a

Page No.21/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

co-worker and the cashier. He initiated the aggression at the other co-worker's fair price shop, then went to the head office, where he struck him and also attacked the cashier. Thus, the charges are extremely serious, and it cannot be concluded that the penalty of dismissal from service was excessive or unfair.

In light of this, the punishment of dismissal from service dated 25.02.1998 is upheld. The award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.35 of 1999 is set aside. Consequently, the second award issued in I.D.No.28 of 2011 is automatically liable to be set aside. Moreover, even on merits regarding the second award, it was established that the domestic inquiry was neither fair nor proper. The Management examined nine witnesses, including the officials who issued the ration card to the Workman, and it was proven that the Workman unlawfully obtained an AAY card intended for the poorest of the poor. It is the responsibility of the fair price shop's salesman and the packer to report to the relevant authorities if they discover that any affluent individual has wrongfully acquired an AAY card. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court suggesting that he violated Civil Law, apart from his duty, is completely erroneous. Even if unrelated to one’s duty, if any employee of a co-operative

Page No.22/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

society incorrectly acquires such a ration card, the charge is serious and warrants dismissal from service, as it constitutes not only cheating the Government but also depriving another poor individual of essential food resources.

Therefore, the Labour Court's finding in the second I.D. No. 28 of 2011 cannot be sustained on its merits also. Once both awards are deemed liable to be set aside, it follows that the order made in C.P. No. 10 of 2008 is also subject to being set aside in its entirety; accordingly, C.P. No. 10 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. In light of this, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The award passed in I.D.No.35 of 1999 shall stand set aside.

(ii) The dismissal order passed against the Workman dated 25.02.1998 stands upheld;

(iii) In view of the earlier dismissal order dated 25.02.1998 being upheld, and the earlier award made in I.D.No.35 of 1999 being set aside, the award passed in I.D.No.28 of 2011 shall stand automatically set aside; The said award cannot stand and is also quashed on merits;

(iv) In view of the award made in I.D.No.35 of 1999 being set aside, the

Page No.23/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

consequent Order made in C.P.No.10 of 2008 dated 14.03.2011 also stands set aside.

(v) The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

04.03.2025

Neutral Citation:Yes

Jer

To The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore.

Page No.24/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

Jer

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

04.03.2025

Page No.25/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,

This matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.

In the common order dated 04.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.20066 of

2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013, the name of the petitioner

societiy in the cause title of W.P.No.20066 of 2008 alone shall be corrected and

shall read as follows:

“The Management, Chidambaram Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketting Society Limited, rep. by its Special Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District”

3.The Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy within a week by

carrying out the aforesaid correction.

11.06.2025

nsl

Page No.26/27

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

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,

nsl

W.P. Nos.20066 of 2008, 24804 of 2012, 26640 and 33968 of 2013

11.06.2025

Page No.27/27

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

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the domestic enquiry held into the charges under the charge memorandum dated 04.12.1997 was fair and proper.¶24
The court held
The Workman was granted due opportunity in the disciplinary inquiry into the 1997 charges (he denied the charges in writing, Management witnesses were examined and documents marked, and he never sought additional documents or to record his own evidence); the belated claims in the Claim Petition being unsupported, the inquiry was fair and proper.ratio¶132
2.
Whether the charges under the first charge memorandum were proved, having regard to the standard of proof applicable in a disciplinary enquiry and the correctness of the Labour Court's assessment.¶143
The court held
Charge No.1 (dereliction of duty as Packer at fair price shop No.7, leaving after signing the attendance register) was properly proved both in the domestic enquiry and before the Labour Court, on the salesman's testimony (M.W.1) coupled with his original statement in Ex.M.1; the Workman produced no evidence of any oral permission to abstain.ratio¶138
3.
Whether dismissal from service was a proportionate punishment for the misconduct proved under the first charge memorandum.¶149
The court held
Both 1997 charges were extremely serious — failure of the Packer (responsible for disbursing essential commodities) to perform duty, and physical assault on a co-worker and the cashier at the fair price shop and head office — so dismissal was not excessive or unfair.ratio¶153
4.
Whether the Labour Court's adjudicatory procedure in I.D.No.35 of 1999 — considering enquiry-fairness, proof of charge and Section 11A proportionality together without a preliminary award — was correct, and whether remand to the Labour Court was necessary.¶127
The court held
The Labour Court's procedure in I.D.No.35 of 1999 was incorrect: it should first have issued a preliminary award on the fairness of the enquiry and only thereafter considered proof of the charges and proportionality under Section 11A; consequently the award dated 05.07.2007 was liable to be set aside.ratio¶127
5.
Whether the award in I.D.No.28 of 2011 could stand on its merits despite the second domestic inquiry being found not fair and proper, including whether wrongful acquisition of an AAY ration card warranted dismissal.¶158
The court held
With the first dismissal upheld and the first award set aside, the second award issued in I.D.No.28 of 2011 is automatically liable to be set aside.ratio¶154