The Managing Director, Vs The Presiding Officer

Smt. K.Karpagam W/o. R. Kannan ( deceased C.11684), No.61/38, Samayapurathu Mariamman Koil Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Maduravoil earikarai, chennai - 602 102. Chennai

¶30

2.K.K.Revathi D/o. R. Kannan ( deceased C.11684), No.61/38, Samayapurathu Mariamman Koil Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Maduravoil earikarai, chennai - 602 102.

¶31

Respondent(s)

¶32

WP No. 580 of 2017

¶33

PRAYER

¶34

Calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in I.D. No.307 of 2013 dated 21.06.2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent herein and quash the same

¶35

WP No. 15787 of 2019

¶36

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

¶37

3

¶38

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF 2019

¶39

PRAYER

¶40

calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in C.P.No.75 of 2017 dated 17.10.2018 on the file of the 1st Additional Labour Court, chennai and quash the same

¶41

W.P.No.580 of 2017

¶42

For Petitioner(s): M/s. C.Gawthaman For Respondent(s): M/s.M.D.Leelavathi For respondents 3 and 4

¶43

W.P.No.15787 of 2019

¶44

For Petitioner(s): M/s. C.Gawthaman For Respondent(s): M/s.M.D.Leelavathi For respondents 1 and 2

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

Since the issue involved in the above writ petitions are one and same they

¶47

are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶48

The Transport Corporation has preferred W.P.No.580 of 2017

¶49

challenging the order of reinstatement directed by the first respondent herein

¶50

vide order dated 21.06.2016 in I.D.No.307 of 2013.

¶51

W.P.No.15787 of 2019 is filed by the Transport Corporation

¶52

challenging the sum the computation arrived at Rs.20,30,860/- directed to be

¶53

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

¶54

4

¶55

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF

¶56

2019

¶57

paid to the legal heirs of the deceased worker by the first respondent Labour

¶58

Court vide order dated 17.10.2018 in C.P.No.75 of 2017.

¶59

The facts are that the deceased worker was employed as conductor by

¶60

the petitioner Corporation. According to the Corporation the worker absented

¶61

himself for eight days without any leave application or prior approval and thereby violated the standing orders of the Corporation. The worker was charge sheeted and the usual procedure of calling for explanation, appointing enquiry

¶62

officer to conduct domestic enquiry, the second show cause notice and the final order of dismissal was passed. The deceased worker was dismissed from service on 16.12.2005, However, after a gap of eight years he chose to raise an Industrial dispute in the year 2016 which was taken on file by the first respondent in I.D.No.307 of 2013. Both sides chose not to examine any witness

¶63

and not to file any documents. Based on the averments, the Tribunal held that

¶64

the dismissal of the workman was not in accordance with law and set aside the order of dismissal. However, considering the fact that the deceased had already superannuated, the Labour Court reinstated him notionally and ordered payment

¶65

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

¶66

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF

¶67

5

¶68

2019

¶69

of backwages and all other benefits. Challenging the same W.P.No.580 of 2017

¶70

is preferred.

¶71

Since the petitioner Corporation did not honour the award passed by

¶72

the Labour Court, the legal heirs of the deceased worker preferred a

¶73

computation claiming backwages, bonus, earned leave, encashment and

¶74

pension. The first respondent on an analysis of entire materials available before it, awarded a sum of Rs.20,30,860/- payable by the petitioner Corporation to the

¶75

legal heirs of the deceased worker.

¶76

The petitioner Corporation has filed W.M.P.No.12265 of 2021 before

¶77

this Court to set aside the abatement and permit the Corporation to implead the legal heirs of the deceased worker / respondents 3 and 4. For the reasons stated

¶78

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the miscellaneous petition is

¶79

ordered.

¶80

The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation took the exception

¶81

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

¶82

6

¶83

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF 2019

¶84

to the finding given by the Labour Court that the charge against the deceased

¶85

workman was not proved. The learned counsel submitted that though the workman was dismissed from services in the year 2005, he chose to raise the

¶86

Industrial Dispute only in the year 2013 after a gap of nearly eight years. No reasons has been attributed for not raising the Industrial Dispute within the reasonable time. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the amounts awarded by the Labour Court under the various heads in the computation petition. The learned counsel submitted that the Corporation cannot be expected to give bonanza to the worker who has not rendered service during the relevant period. The fact that the workman chose to wait for almost eight years to raise the Industrial Dispute proves that he was otherwise gainfully

¶87

employed and he was not economically unstable. The learned counsel therefore prayed that interference of this Court is very much needed in a matter of this

¶88

nature and prayed to set aside the impugned orders.

¶89

The learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased workman

¶90

submitted that the orders passed by the Labour Court are cogent, convincing

¶91

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

¶92

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF 2019

¶93

7

¶94

and well reasoned. The impugned orders will not require any interference and

¶95

therefore the same may be sustained and the writ petition may be rejected.

¶96

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

¶97

placed on record.

¶98

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶99

Corporation, there was a huge delay of nearly eight years in raising an industrial

¶100

dispute after the workman was dismissed from service. Though the petitioner Corporation has raised various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the

¶101

writ petition against the Labour Court ordering reinstatement it is to be noted

¶102

that the petitioner has not chosen to let in any oral evidence or marked any documents in this regard. However, in the interest of justice, this Court is accepting the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioner Corporation that there was a huge delay of nearly eight years in preferring the Industrial Dispute against the order of dismissal. Moreover, the Labour Court has not given any convincing reasons for setting aside the order of dismissal. The order dated

¶103

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

¶104

8

¶105

WP Nos. 580 of 2017 & 15787 OF 2019

¶106

21.06.2016 setting aside the order of dismissal is very cryptic and bereft of any

¶107

strong reasons. Though the workman has absented himself only for eight days,

¶108

he could not have very well adjudicated the matter before the petitioner Corporation at the initial stage itself. Even after the order of dismissal, he chose to wait for nearly eight years to raise an Industrial Dispute. This lethargic argument of the workman speaks volumes. The domestic enquiry conducted by

¶109

the petitioner is proper and this Court does not find any reason to hold that it was held in an unjustifiable manner. The order passed by the Labour Court

¶110

dated 21.06.2016, setting aside the order of dismissal is quashed.

¶111

The amount awarded by the Labour Court in the computation petition

¶112

is also unjustifiable. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation, the Corporation cannot be expected to grant a bonanza

¶113

to a worker who has not rendered any service during the relevant period. Hence

¶114

the impugned award dated 17.10.2018 is also quashed.

¶115