The Management Vs Smt. G.Vijaya — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management Vs Smt. G.Vijaya — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition W.P. No. 2187 of 2020 dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the workman; the Labour Court award in I.D. No. 74 of 2013 left undisturbed; W.M.P. Nos. 2560 of 2020 and 29783 of 2022 closed; two months from receipt of the order allowed for payment of back-wage arrears including Section 17-B dues and for compliance with the reinstatement-with-continuity directions of the Award.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, exercising writ/certiorari jurisdiction, should quash or otherwise interfere with the Labour Court, Salem award in I.D. No. 74 of 2013 dated 12.06.2018 that set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. +2 more

Court's answer

Certiorari/writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate: findings of fact reached by the Labour Court through appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened in writ proceedings, and the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal; accordingly this Court found the case not fit for interference with the impugned award.

Ratio / Principle

Once the employer's domestic inquiry is set aside and fresh evidence is introduced before the Labour Court, the standard of proof shifts from the domestic-inquiry standard to the judicial standard applicable before the Tribunal, which must itself satisfy whether the misconduct is proved (principle of Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, per Firestone Tyre).

Key takeaways

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition provided no justification for the one-and-a-half-year delay in filing, weighing against interference with the award.ratio¶¶167
Costs were imposed on the petitioner management because, beyond failing to comply with the Section 17-B statutory obligation to pay last drawn wages upon refusal to reinstate, it offered employment pending the writ petition but did not provide it, forcing the workman to move the Division Bench.ratio¶¶169
Time of two months from the date of receipt of the order was fixed for payment of arrears of back wages (including payment under Section 17-B) as ordered by this court and for compliance with the Award relating to reinstatement with continuity of service.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete) dismisses a primary agricultural co-operative credit society's writ petition challenging the Labour Court, Salem award in I.D. No. 74 of 2013 (12.06.2018), which had set aside the dismissal of its cashier and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, attendant benefits and Rs.10,000/- costs. Treating certiorari as supervisory — findings of fact of the Tribunal cannot be reopened and evidentiary sufficiency falls exclusively within the Tribunal's jurisdiction (Harjinder Singh, quoting Syed Yakoob and Surya Dev Rai) — and noting that once the domestic inquiry is set aside and fresh evidence is laid, the Tribunal must judge the misconduct on the shifted judicial standard (Firestone Tyre; Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act 1947), the Court found no warrant for interference; the affidavit also failed to justify the 1½-year filing delay. Costs of Rs.5,000/- were levied for breach of the Section 17-B last-drawn-wages duty after the management reneged on the reinstatement it had offered pending the petition, forcing the workman to the Division Bench; two months were allowed for payment of back-wage arrears (including Section 17-B dues) and implementation of reinstatement with continuity.

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 050225 Pronounced on : 021925

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2020 and

W.M.P.No.2560 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.29783 of 2022

The Management of S-1442, Tiruvandipatti Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Rep. by its President, Tiruvandipatti, Kozhikkal Natham Post, Sankagiri, Salem District …. Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. G.Vijaya, W/o. Ganesan 3-3, 30 A3, G.V. Illam, Opp. to New Bus Stand, Sankagiri, Salem District. …Respondent

Prayer in W.P.No. 2187 of 2020 : To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records relating to the order dated 12.06.2018 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem made in I.D.No.74 of 2013 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

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

1 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

Prayer in WMP No. 2560 of 2020 : To stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the order dated 12/06/2018 on the file of the Labour Court Salem made in I.D.No.74 of 2013 (in WMP 2560/2020) pending disposal of the WP. 2187/2020 respectively.

Prayer in WMP No. 29783 of 2022: To vacate the stay granted by this Hon’ble Court in W.M.P.No.2560 of 2020 in W.P.No.2187 of 2020 on 30.01.2020 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan

JUDGMENT

Heard.

Petitioner Management, a primary agricultural

co-operative credit society, has filed this writ petition challenging

the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 74 of 2013, dated 12.06.2018. By the impugned award, the Labour Court on 29.12.2011 set aside the dismissal order issued to the Respondent workman and directed the Petitioner Society to reinstate him with continuity of service, back wages, and all attendant benefits within two months from the date of publication

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

2 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

.

of the award. Also, the Labour Court awarded costs of Rs.10,000/-

In the writ petition, while issuing notice of motion in W.P. No. 2187 of 2020 and WMP No. 2560 of 2020, an interim

stay of the Award was also granted. Upon receiving notice, the Respondent entered an appearance and filed two Miscellaneous Applications: WMP No. 29783 of 2022, seeking to vacate the interim stay, and WMP No. 29785 of 2022, requesting the grant of monthly wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, pending the disposal of the writ petition.

The Petitioner Management submitted a letter of

instruction dated 16.03.2024, wherein, after outlining the financial condition of the society, it stated as follows:

“ Mifahy; r';fj;jpd; eyd; fUjpa[k; gzpahsh; eyd; fUjpa[k; mtUf;F bfhLf;f ntz;oa 17gp rk;gsk; ( WAGES ) - f;F gjpyhf mtiu kPz;Lk; gzpapy; mkh;j;jp gzpapy; nrh;e;j ehs;Kjy; gzpg[hptjw;fhd rk;gsj;ij Vw;fdnt bgw;W te;j mog;gil rk;gsj;jpw;F jw;nghJ cs;s mftpiyapd;go rk;gsk; tH';fg;gLk;) nkw;go tHf;F Koa[k; tiua[k; my;yJ tHf;fpd;

,Wjp jPh;g;gpid vjph;nehf;fpa[k; gzpapy; nrh;j;J bfhs;s mDkjpf;fpnwhk; vd;gija[k; nkw;go Kd;dhy; gzpahsh; jpUkjp/

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

3 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

G.

G. tp$ah mth;fs; ,e;j ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; ntW xU epWtdj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;J rk;gsk; bgw;W tUfpwhh; vd;gij j';fs; fdpthd ghh;itf;F rkh;g;gpf;fpnwd; vd;gija[k;. nkw;go tpraj;ij nfhh;l;oy; brhy;yp jFe;j cj;jput[ bgw;W jUk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ”

The WMP seeking payment of wages under Section 17B

(WMP No. 29785 of 2022) was disposed of by an order dated 25.03.2024, which stated as follows:

“In view of the above facts, the 17-B application is disposed of recording the statement of the respondent, that the respondent is willing to reinstate the petitioner in service on the basis of the wages last drawn by her without prejudice to its rights in the writ petition.”

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent

workman filed a Writ Appeal, W.A. No. 2156 of 2024, before a Division Bench, contending that while the management had offered to reinstate her in service, she had raised certain objections before the Single Judge, which were duly recorded. However, the Division Bench, by its order dated 09.09.2024, dismissed the Writ Appeal and, in paragraph 3, observed as follows:

“This Court, sitting on an appeal over the

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

4 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

order of the learned Single Judge, will not delve and explore the veracity of disputed facts. More so, when learned Single Judge had also recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that she was willing to join duty, pursuant to the offer made by the Management. When the appellant herself had expressed that she was willing to join duty, we fail to understand as to how objections could have been raised to the offer of reinstatement by the Management. Thus, we do not find any other infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.”

During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Petitioner Management, by a letter dated 22.08.2024, expressed its intent not to reinstate the Respondent workman until the disposal of the writ petition and to avoid the payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, as directed by the Court. The letter stated as follows:

“ ghh;it 1 - y; fhZk; khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz; WMP.No. 29785 / 2022 in WP.No. 2187 / 2020 ehs; 25/03/2024 jPh;g;g[iuapy; kDjhuh; 17 -B rk;gsj;jp[w;F ( wages ) gjpyhf r';fj;jpy; ,Wjpahf bgw;Wte;j Cjpaj;ij rk;gskhf eph;zak; bra;J gzpapy; gzpakh;j;j bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/

nkw;fz;l jPh;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapy; r';fj;jpy; gzpapy;

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

5 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

nrh;e;J bfhs;s ghh;it 2 - y; fhZk; brayhl;rpahpd; fojj;jpd; K:yk; j';fSf;F bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/

khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz;/29785 / 2022

in WP.No. 2187 / 2020 jPh;g;g[ ehs; 25/03/2024 - d; jPh;g;g[iuapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l bewpKiwfis gpd;gw;whky; jpUkjp G/ tp$ah Mfpa jh';fs; nkw;Fwpg;gl;l tHf;F jph;g;gpid nky;KiwaPL bra;Js;sPh;/

khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nky; KiwaPl;L

vz; WA.No. 2156 of 2024 ehs; 05/08/2024 - d; go nky;KiwaPl;L kD j';fshy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; nky;KiwaPl;L kD tHf;F tprhuid epiwtila[k; tiu j';fis gzpakh;j;jk; bra;jpl ,ayhJ vd;w tptuk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/

jh';fs; ghh;it 1 - y; fhZk; khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz; 29785 / 2022 in WP.No. 2187 / 2020 jPh;g;g [ iuapid vjph;j;J nky;KiwaPl;L kD jhf;fy; bra;J mnj jPh;gpid epiwntw;w nfhUtJ rl;lg;goahd epfH;thfJ

vd;gjida[k; j';fSf;F bjhptpj;J bfhz;L ghh;it 4 - y;

fhZk; j';fspd; gzpnru mwpf;if ehd; 19/08/2024 (mYtyfj;jpy; bgwg;gl;l ehs; 20/08/2020) Kw;wpYk;

epuhfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ vd;w tptuk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”

The facts leading to the passing of the Award are as follows:

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

6 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

The Respondent workman joined the Petitioner

Management Society as a Salesperson on 01.01.1988 and was promoted to the position of Cashier in 1992. She was dismissed from service on 29.12.2011 after completing 23 years of service. A charge memo dated 15.04.2011 was issued to her, alleging that she had fraudulently inflated the figures in the jewel loan applications beyond the actual loan amounts disbursed to the loanees. In the jewel loan ledgers related to 78 jewel loan accounts, after issuing loan receipts to the members reflecting the actual amounts availed, she misappropriated the difference between the actual loan amount and the inflated amount recorded in the ledgers, which totalled Rs.8,69,450/-. This misappropriation was carried out jointly in connivance with the Secretary and Manager.

She was also charged with colluding with the Secretary to create false records, making it appear as though loans had been advanced against fixed deposits. False entries were made in the cash books, leading to the misappropriation of Rs. 2,69,000/-. Also, she, along with the Secretary, was accused of obtaining the

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

7 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

signatures of five savings bank account holders on withdrawal slips and, without their knowledge, withdrawing a sum of Rs. 2,60,169/-. Furthermore, during an inspection conducted by the Regional Field Officer, Salem, on 23.07.2010, a cash balance check revealed a shortage of Rs.1,06,929/-, which was misappropriated by the Respondent in collusion with the Secretary.

The Respondent submitted a reply dated 15.04.2011, requesting the furnishing of essential documents forming part of the charge sheet. However, these documents were not provided to her. An inquiry was conducted, but it was merely a sham and nominal proceeding. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 22.09.2011, found three out of the four charges proved, while the fourth charge—regarding the alteration of the cash balance to a lesser amount than the actual—was not substantiated. Subsequently, a second show-cause notice dated 15.11.2011 was issued, asking her to explain why she should not be dismissed from service. Thereafter, by an order dated 24.11.2011, she was

dismissed from service.

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

8 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Salem. As the Conciliation Officer was unable to facilitate a settlement, he issued a failure report dated 28.03.2013. Based on this report, the workman filed a claim statement before the Labour Court, Salem, where her dispute was registered as I.D. No. 74 of 2013, and notice was issued to the Petitioner Management.

The Petitioner Management filed a counter statement, opposing her claim. During the proceedings, the Labour Court directed the Petitioner to produce the inquiry report to determine the preliminary issue concerning the validity of the inquiry. However, as the report was not submitted, the Labour Court, by its preliminary order dated 28.01.2014, held that there was no proper inquiry to support the dismissal order. The court, however, allowed the management to lead fresh evidence to substantiate the charges.

Subsequently, the Respondent submitted six documents,

which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6, and examined herself as

a witness (PW1). On behalf of the Petitioner Management, 18 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits R1 to R18.

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

9 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

Additionally, the Petitioner Management examined K. Subramaniam (Manager) as RW1. Thus, the entire matter, including the substantiation of the charges through evidence, was presented before the Labour Court for consideration.

13. The Labour Court, after analyzing the evidence

presented before it both oral and documentary concluded that the charges leveled against the Respondent workman were not proved. Consequently, it held that the dismissal order was unlawful and set it aside. By its Award dated 12.06.2018, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the Respondent with continuity of service, back wages, and all attendant benefits, along with costs of Rs.10,000/-. It is against this Award that the present writ petition has been filed, as already noted.

In their writ petition, the Petitioner stated that the

Labour Court failed to properly appreciate the fact that the Respondent's workman had committed irregularities and misappropriation. After reproducing the arguments set out in Grounds (B) to (F), the Petitioner further asserted that the

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

10 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

withdrawal slips in the savings bank account transactions were not signed by the account holders and that the Labour Court had only superficially examined the allegations. As previously noted, despite specific directions from the Labour Court, the management did not produce the inquiry report, resulting in the setting aside of the original inquiry. Thereafter, the management examined the Manager as a witness and submitted 18 documents, marked as Exhibits R1 to R18. Once fresh evidence was introduced, the Labour Court was required to consider only that evidence and not rely on any findings from the original domestic inquiry.

In the present case, the Labour Court, in the impugned award, analyzed the evidence presented before it. In paragraph 11, it observed that while the Respondent workman, when examined as WW1, was not questioned about whether the signatures found in Ex.R3, Ex.R4, Ex.R5, Ex.R10, and Ex.R11 were hers. Although the witness admitted the nature of her job duties, she denied affixing her signature in the absence of the Secretary and the Manager on cash receipts, jewel loan receipts, and fixed deposit

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

11 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

loan receipts. Notably, she was not cross-examined on this aspect. In paragraph 11, the Labour Court recorded the following finding:

“ mjw;F khwhf nkw;go urPJfis brayhsUk;. nkyhsUk; ,y;yhj rkaj;jpy; kDjhuh; ifbaGj;J nghl;L tpl;L eiff;fld; tH';fp tpl;L. brayhsh; kw;Wk; nkyhsh; gzpf;F te;j gpwF mjw;Fhpa gpd; xg;g[jy; ifbaGj;J th';fpa[s;shh; vd;W nfs;tp vGg;gg;gl;Ls;sij kDjhuh; kWj;Js;shh;/ vdnt.

Vjph;kDjhuh; tHf;Fg;go Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghizapy; brhy;yg;gl;Ls;s r';fjpfs; kDjhuh; eiff;fld; urPJ. ,l;Litg;g[ urPJfs; kw;Wk; buhf;f urPJfspy; brayhsUld; nrh;e;J ifahly; bra;J tpl;lhh; vd;w Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghizapy; bjhptpj;J tpl;L FWf;F tprhuiz rkaj;jpy; Vw;fdnt nkw;go urPJfspy; ifbaGj;J bra;J ifahly; bra;J tpl;L gpd;g[ mjw;F gpd; xg;g[jiy brayhshplk; bgw;Ws;shh; vd;gjhFk;/ vdnt. nkw;go Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghizf;Fk;. Vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; FWf;F tprhuizapy; nfs;tp vGg;gg;gl;Ls;sjw;Fk; xd;Wf;bfhd;W Kuzhf cs;sJ/ ”

The Labour Court, in the impugned award, further held that, as per the duties and responsibilities outlined in Ex.R1, both the Cashier and the Secretary had joint responsibility for financial transactions. While the Cashier prepared and signed all the receipts, it was the duty of the Secretary to verify and, if any discrepancies were found, to refuse to sign them. However, in this

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

12 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

case, the Secretary had signed the documents without raising any objections. The Labour Court also noted that the Petitioner Management’s witness, RW1, had admitted that a similar charge sheet had been issued to both the Secretary and the Manager (RW1). Surcharge proceedings were initiated against them, but after they repaid the misappropriated amount along with interest, the surcharge proceedings were cancelled by an order dated 12.08.2011. Following this, there was no financial loss to the society. Furthermore, it was observed that the Secretary, Rajamuthu, was retained in employment and eventually retired, while the Manager (RW1) was promoted to the position of Secretary.

The witness, RW1, also admitted that the Respondent workman had met with an accident and was unconscious from 06.06.2010, during which she was hospitalized as an inpatient. He further confirmed that no charges had been issued against her until that date. It is also admitted that both the Manager and the Secretary had signed the documents related to the jewel loan register. In Exhibits R3 to R11, there were no corrections or

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

13 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

deletions, and the members had signed those documents. The charge memo issued to the Respondent did not specify the names of the members, the dates, or the loan amounts in question. As for the charge concerning the savings bank account transactions, the charges pertained to transactions from the years 2003, 2007, and 2009. Similarly in Exhibits R4, R7, R8, and R9, which relate to the savings bank ledgers, the Secretary and the Manager (RW1) had affixed their signatures. For the fixed deposit loan documents, they were not produced before the court. The Labour Court observed that only if those documents were filed could it be determined whether the records related to the second charge were available or not.

The Labour Court, from the cross-examination of RW1, found that documents related to jewel loans, fixed deposit loans, savings bank accounts, and income and expenditure records had been signed by both the Secretary and the Manager (RW1). While their signatures were present in the expenditure ledgers, they were absent from the hand chart. The charges did not specify

when the Secretary was absent for outside work or how the

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

14 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

workman allegedly committed irregularities during that time. The

society’s accounts were subject to annual audits conducted by the audit department, as well as audits by the District Central Bank to verify income and expenditure. However, neither the monthly audits nor the final audit reports mentioned any irregularities. Regarding the jewel loan transactions, RW1 admitted that the Manager was a joint key holder along with the Secretary. Furthermore, RW1 acknowledged that there was no specific or individualized charge sheet against the Respondent workman identifying any particular irregularity committed solely by her.

Based on these findings, the Labour Court found that, while the Secretary, who had also been charge-sheeted, was later retained in employment and the Manager was promoted without any inquiry, the Respondent workman alone was subjected to dismissal. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of its award, the Labour Court made the following observations:

“ nkYk; cs;tprhuiz elj;jg;gltpy;iy vd;whYk;Tl me;j cs;tprhuizapy; gad;gLj;jg;gl ntz;oa midj;J Mtz';fisa[k; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd;g[ vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; Kd;dpWj;jp tHf;if epU:gpf;f tha;g;g[ ,Ue;Jk;. mjd;go ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; M$h;gLj;jf;fToa Mtz';fs; ,e;j tHf;fpy; chpa Kiwapy;

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

15 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

Kd;dpWj;jg;glhjjhYk;. rk;ke;jg;gl;l r';fr; brayhsUf;F cWJizahf ,Ue;j kw;w mYtyh;fs; Fw;wr;rhl;L tH';fpa[s;s jdp mYtyh; Mfpnahh;fis tprhhpf;fhjJ kpfg;bghpa gpiHahFk;/ nkYk; eph;thfj; jug;g[ rhl;rpahf ,Ue;jpUf;f ntz;oa midtiua[k; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd;g[ M$h;gLj;jhjJ nfs;tpf;Fwpajhfnt cs;sJ/ ,e;j tHf;if ifahs;tjpYk; kDjhuUf;F vjpuhf tHf;if epU:gpg;gjpYk; chpa mf;fiw fhl;ltpy;iy vd;nw ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ/ nkYk; v/rh/1 jhnd midj;J Fw;wr;bray;fSf;Fk;. epjp nkhrofSf;Fk; fhuzk; vd;W xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;s epiyapy;. mth; jz;lj;jPh;it brYj;jpa[s;sij itj;J ghh;f;Fk; nghJ cz;ikapnyna ifahly; bra;ahky; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy; v/rh/1 nkw;go bjhiffis ,Urhy; bra;jpUf;f ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy/ 16) vdnt. ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; tH';fpa tha;g;ig gad;gLj;jp vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ jdp mYtynuh. r';f nkyhsnuh ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd;g[ M$uhfp tHf;if epU:gpf;fhjJ kl;Lky;yhky; jtW bra;jtnu jtW bra;ahjtUf;F vjpuhf rhl;rpakspj;jpUg;gJ xU kpfg; bghpa Fw;wr;rhl;il kiwg;gJ nghyhFk;/ kDjhuUf;F vjpuhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; chpa Kiwapy; epUPgpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;W Kot[ bra;j kDjhuUf;F vjpuhf tH';fg;gl;l epue;ju gzpePf;f cj;jput [ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L. kDjhuiu gHp th';Fk; nehf;fpy; gzpePf;fk; bra;Js;sjhy; kDjhuUf;F U:/10.000- - bryt[j;bjhif tH';f vjph;kDjhuUf;F cj;jutplyhk; vd;w ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;L vGtpdh vz;/1 - w;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”

It was based on these findings that the Labour Court

set aside the dismissal order and granted relief to the workman, as

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

16 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

previously noted. Once the inquiry conducted by the management is set aside and fresh evidence is introduced before the Labour Court, the standard of proof shifts from that required in a domestic inquiry to the standard applicable in judicial proceedings before the Labour Court. This legal principle was established by the Supreme Court nearly five decades ago when it examined the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , which was introduced in 1971. In the landmark case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt) Ltd. v. The Management , reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 39 to 41, laid down the following principles:

“Having held that the right of the employer to adduce evidence continues even under the new section, it is needless to state that, when such evidence is adduced for the first time, it is the Tribunal which has to be satisfied on such evidence about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned. The law, as laid 'down by this Court that under such circumstances the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and that it has to decide for itself whether the

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

17 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

misconduct alleged is proved, continues to have full effect. In (1) [1972] I.L.L.J. 180, such a case, as laid down by this Court, the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all.

Therefore, it will-be seen that both in respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held as also in cases where the Tribunal considers the matter on the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the satisfaction under section 11 A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry has been held by an employer and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ from that finding in a proper case and hold that no misconduct is proved.

We are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the employers that the stage for interference under section 11 A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer. It has to be remembered that a Tribunal may 'hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant dismissal or discharge. The

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

18 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to reappraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. That is why, according to us, section 11A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Both categories are now put on a par by section 11A.”

When the matter was heard earlier by another judge on 16.10.2023 , a direction was issued to both parties to file written submissions. However, only the Respondent workman submitted a

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

19 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

written brief dated 06.11.2023 , while the Petitioner Management did not file any written submissions. Instead, they relied on the grounds raised in the writ petition. In the written submission, the Respondent workman primarily relied on the findings of the Labour Court. Additionally, reliance was placed on two Supreme Court judgments that clarified the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India concerning the High Court’s jurisdiction while reviewing Labour Court awards.

The first decision relied upon was Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation , reported in 2010 (3) SCC 192. In this case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the High Court’s power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, quoted with approval the following passage from its earlier judgment in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. , AIR 1964 SC 477:

“…however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of

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

20 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court.”

In the same decision, Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State

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

21 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

Warehousing Corporation (2010 (3) SCC 192), the Supreme Court also quoted with approval the following passage from its earlier judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. , reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675:

“The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an

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

22 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case."

In view of the above, it is not a fit case calling for any

interference with the impugned award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 74/2013, dated 12.06.2018 . Furthermore, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not provide any justification for the 1½-year delay in filing the writ petition. Hence, W.P. No. 2187 of 2020 is dismissed, with costs of Rs. 5,000/payable to the workman .

The costs is necessitated because the Petitioner

Management not only failed to comply with the statutory obligation of paying last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in case of refusal to reinstate the workman, in the present case they offered employment pending the W.P and did not provide the same and the workman was forced to move the Division Bench. Accordingly, W.M.P. Nos. 2560 of 2020 and 29783 of 2022 stand closed. Time for payment

of arrears of back wages including payment under Section 17-B

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

23 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

ordered by this court and compliance with the Award relating to reinstatement with continuity of service is two months from the date of receipt of this order.

19.02.2025 NCC: Yes / No Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No av

Copy to: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

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

24 of 25

W.P.No.2187 of 2020

DR. A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

av

Pre-delivery Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.2560 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.29783 of 2022

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

.02.2025

25 of 25

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award of the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 74 of 2013 dated 12.06.2018 setting aside the dismissal of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner society to reinstate her with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits within two months from publication of the award, with costs of Rs.10,000/-¶¶11
Labour Court, Salem · 12.06.2018
Prior proceeding
Respondent workman joined the petitioner society as a Salesperson on 01.01.1988 and was promoted to Cashier in 1992.¶¶69
Prior proceeding
She was dismissed after completing 23 years of service; the judgment records the dismissal date as 29.12.2011 (see also the dismissal order dated 24.11.2011 noted below — internally inconsistent dates in the judgment).¶¶69
Prior proceeding
Charge memo dated 15.04.2011 alleging fraudulent inflation of figures in jewel loan applications beyond actual amounts disbursed; alleged misappropriation totalling Rs.8,69,450/- across 78 jewel loan accounts, allegedly in connivance with the Secretary and Manager.¶¶69
Prior proceeding
Charge of colluding with the Secretary to create false fixed-deposit records; false cash-book entries allegedly leading to misappropriation of Rs. 2,69,000/-¶¶70
Prior proceeding
Charge of obtaining signatures of five savings bank account holders on withdrawal slips and withdrawing Rs. 2,60,169/- without their knowledge.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
Inspection by the Regional Field Officer, Salem on 23.07.2010 revealed a cash shortage of Rs.1,06,929/-, allegedly misappropriated in collusion with the Secretary.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
Respondent replied on 15.04.2011 requesting furnishing of essential documents forming part of the charge sheet; the documents were not provided; she described the inquiry as sham and nominal.¶¶75
Prior proceeding
Inquiry Officer's report dated 22.09.2011 found three of the four charges proved; the fourth charge (alteration of cash balance to a lesser amount) was not substantiated.¶¶75
Prior proceeding
Second show-cause notice dated 15.11.2011 asking her to explain why she should not be dismissed.¶¶75
Prior proceeding
Dismissal order dated 24.11.2011 executed (contrast with the 29.12.2011 dismissal date recorded at ¶69).¶¶75
Prior proceeding
Workman raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Salem; the Conciliation Officer issued a failure report dated 28.03.2013.¶¶80
Prior proceeding
Based on the failure report the workman filed a claim statement before the Labour Court, Salem; the dispute was registered as I.D. No. 74 of 2013 and notice issued to the petitioner management.¶¶80
Prior proceeding
Management did not produce the inquiry report when directed; by preliminary order dated 28.01.2014 the Labour Court held there was no proper inquiry supporting the dismissal, but allowed the management to lead fresh evidence to substantiate the charges.¶¶81
Prior proceeding
During adjudication the respondent submitted six documents (Exhibits P1 to P6) and was examined as PW1; the petitioner management filed 18 documents (Exhibits R1 to R18).¶¶84
Prior proceeding
Petitioner management examined K. Subramaniam (Manager) as RW1.¶¶88
Prior proceeding
Labour Court concluded the charges were not proved, held the dismissal unlawful and set it aside; award dated 12.06.2018 directed reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits, with costs of Rs.10,000/-¶¶90
Prior proceeding
While issuing notice of motion on the writ petition and WMP No. 2560 of 2020, an interim stay of the award was granted.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
The interim stay in W.M.P.No.2560 of 2020 had been granted on 30.01.2020 (per the respondent's vacation prayer in W.M.P.No.29783 of 2022).¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed WMP No. 29785 of 2022 seeking monthly wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act pending disposal of the writ petition; it was disposed of by order dated 25.03.2024 recording the management's statement that it was willing to reinstate her on last-drawn wages without prejudice to its rights in the writ petition.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the 25.03.2024 order, the workman filed W.A. No. 2156 of 2024; the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 09.09.2024.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 22.08.2024 the petitioner management expressed intent not to reinstate the workman until disposal of the writ petition and to avoid payment of Section 17B wages as directed by the court.¶¶49
Prior proceeding
At an earlier hearing on 16.10.2023 another judge directed both parties to file written submissions; only the respondent filed a written brief (dated 06.11.2023); the management relied on the grounds in the writ petition.¶¶144