Dismissed¶39

N.Thillaiappan (Deceased), v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC26 Feb 2025WP/22387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised absence; dismissal upheld; disproportionate punishment argument rejected; no perversity in Labour Court award; I.D.No.271 of 2010 Principal Labour Court Vellore; eight-year delay in raising industrial dispute; certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 refused; Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Ltd.; deceased workman LRs; no compensation; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the punishment of dismissal ordered by the 2nd respondent/management for the workman's repeated unauthorised absence is justified and not disproportionate to the misconduct committed, since he was given sufficient opportunity to mend his ways but committed the same misconduct repeatedly. ¶38

N.Thillaiappan (Deceased), Vs The Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal imposed on the workman for unauthorised absence was highly disproportionate, and whether the Court should instead fix a reasonable compensation for the service (about 12 years) rendered by the deceased workman, as urged by petitioners' counsel. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Court concluded that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer any perversity; the dismissal of the I.D. is fully justified and cannot be interfered with.

¶38

Key takeaways

Weighing the record that the dismissal issued in 2002 while the workman filed the industrial dispute only in 2010 (a lapse of eight years), together with the Labour Court's consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Court found no basis to disturb the Award; consequently the petitioners' prayer (including the request for compensation) could not be acceded to.ratio¶38
The prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be acceded to and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) | W.P.No.22387 of 2014 | Decided 26.02.2025. A writ of certiorarified mandamus (Art. 226) sought quashing of the Award dated 04.10.2011 in I.D.No.271 of 2010 of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, which had upheld the dismissal (16.10.2002) of a workman who joined the management of M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Ltd. in 1989, on the ground of repeated unauthorised absence. During the writ, the 1st petitioner died and his LRs continued the challenge, asking instead that reasonable compensation be fixed for his ~12 years of service. The Court endorsed the Labour Court's conclusion that the dismissal was justified and not disproportionate - the workman had prior punishments (stoppage of increment in 1998, counselling in 1999-2000, charge memo in 2001) and repeated the misconduct despite opportunities to mend his ways - found no perversity in the Award, noted that the dispute was raised eight years after dismissal and the writ three years after the award, declined interference, and dismissed the petition with no costs. No compensation was awarded.

¶1

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.02.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶7

1.N.Thillaiappan (Deceased)

¶8

2.T.Mahalakshmi

¶9

3.T.Karthikeyan

¶10

4.T.Deepalakshmi

¶11

5.N.Kanthammal ... Petitioners

¶12

[P2 to P5 substituted as LRs of deceased 1^st petitioner vide order dt.16.09.2022 made in W.M.P.No.29543/2016 in W.P.No.22387/2014]

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

¶15

2.The Management of M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Ltd., Tel Post, Vellore – 59. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Award dated 04.10.2011 passed in I.D.No.271 of 2010, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with back wages and other attendant benefits.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu

¶18

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

¶19

Page No.1 of 6

¶20

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶21

For Respondents : Labour Court [R1] Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab for M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associates [R2]

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Award dated 04.10.2011 passed in I.D.No.271 of 2010, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2 nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with back wages and other attendant benefits.

¶25

2. The case of the petitioners is that, the 1 st petitioner/workman joined the services of the 2 nd respondent as a unskilled workman in the year 1989 and his services were confirmed in the year 1991 and paid with a monthly salary of Rs.7,281/-. Due to ill-health, he was not able to attend the duty regularly, thereby he applied medical leave and took treatment, for which, charge memos were issued for absence and ordered for enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and based on the report of the enquiry officer, he was terminated from service on 16.10.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the workman had raised an

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶29

industrial dispute in I.D.No.271 of 2010 before the 1 st respondent/Labour Court and the same was dismissed vide award dated 04.10.2011.

¶30

Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the 1 st petitioner/workman passed away and his legal heirs impleaded themselves as party and contested this case. Further, he submitted that, for the misconduct of unauthorized absence, the 2 nd respondent/management had ordered for dismissal which is highly disproportionate. Hence, he submitted that, this Court may fix a reasonable compensation for the service rendered by the deceased workman with the 2 nd respondent/management, since he rendered 12 years of service with the 2 nd respondent. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶32

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/ management submitted that, the workman is a chronic absentee and he continuously absented himself from duty. In the year 1998, he has taken 30½ days leave, for which, punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed. In the year 1999 – 2000, he has taken 30½ days leave, for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 6

¶33

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶34

which, counselling was given. Again, in the year, 2001, he has taken 17 days, 14 days and 11 days without any leave letter, for which, the charge memo was issued. Thereafter, he was continuously absent, thereby, after conducting appropriate enquiry, order of dismissal was passed on 16.10.2002. Though the order of dismissal was passed in the year 2002, however, the workman had raised the industrial dispute only after a lapse of eight year before the Labour Court. All those aspects were elaborately considered by the 1 st respondent/Labour Court and dismissed the I.D. Apart from that, though the industrial dispute ended in the year 2011, however, after a lapse of three years, the workman had filed the present writ petition, which itself shows that the workman has not approach this Court with clean hands. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶35

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

6. Admittedly, the 1 st petitioner/deceased workman joined the services of the 2 nd respondent/management as Unskilled workman in the year 1989 and for repeated unauthorized absence, he was terminated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 6

¶37

W.P.No.22387 of 2014

¶38

from service on 16.10.2002, against which, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed in the year 2011 itself. It is seen from the records that the order of dismissal was passed in the year 2002, however, the workman has chosen to file the industrial dispute in the year 2010 only, which is after a lapse of eight years. By considering the oral and documentary evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court had arrived at a conclusion that the punishment of dismissal ordered by the 2 nd respondent/management is justified and not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman, since he was given sufficient opportunity to mend his ways, however, he had committed the same misconduct repeatedly. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not suffers any perversity and the dismissal of I.D. is fully justified and the same cannot be interfered with. Hence, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be acceded to and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶40

26.02.2025

¶41

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶42

Page No.5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.22387 of 2014