Dismissed¶37

K.Saravanan v. the Management

Madras HC13 Feb 2025WP(MD)/3226/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Removal from service; reinstatement with backwages and attendance benefits; industrial dispute I.D.No.35/2015; Labour Court, Tirunelveli preliminary and final awards; six employees removed on same charge; Madura Coats; gravity of misconduct versus reinstated workforce; writ petition dismissed following Division Bench order dated 24.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)Nos.116 to 119 of 2018; W.P.(MD)Nos.16492 to 16495 of 2017; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; release of terminal dues despite upheld removal.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed following the Division Bench order dated 24.01.2018, with a direction that any amounts due to the petitioner be released by respondent No.1 Management (or withdrawn by him if already deposited), and no order as to costs. ¶37

K.Saravanan Vs the Management — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary and final awards passed in I.D.No.35/2015 by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, upholding the petitioner's removal from service, should be quashed and the petitioner reinstated with backwages and attendance benefits. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since the very same issues raised in this writ petition were dealt with by the learned single Judge and the learned Division Bench, and the claims of the petitioner's co-employees were rejected, the petitioner's claim is also liable to be rejected.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the conclusive finding recorded by the learned Division Bench, this Court had no option except to dismiss the writ petition following the Division Bench order dated 24.01.2018.

¶36

Key takeaways

Even with the removal from service upheld, any amounts the petitioner is entitled to shall be released by respondent No.1 Management if not already released; if already deposited with any authority, the petitioner may withdraw them on application.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the preliminary award dated 25.04.2016 and final award dated 27.09.2016 of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.35/2015, which upheld the removal from service of petitioner K.Saravanan by Madura Coats, dismissed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Holding that the identical issues stood conclusively dealt with by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)Nos.116 to 119 of 2018 (order dated 24.01.2018), wherein the claims of four co-employees removed on the very same charge were rejected — the Division Bench having observed that where more than 2000 workers were reinstated and only six, including the appellants, were refused reinstatement, the gravity of their misconduct and past antecedents were established — the Court followed that order and dismissed the petition, while directing release of any amounts still due to the petitioner notwithstanding the upheld removal, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3226 of 2017

K.Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Management, Madura Coats Mills Company Ltd., Papanasam Mills Post, Vigramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District - 627 425.

¶11

2.Human Resource Director, Madurai Coats India Private Ltd., Head Office at Bangalore, Karnataka.

¶12

3.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of preliminary award passed by the 3^rd respondent in I.D.No. 35/2015 dated 25.04.2016 and the consequential final award passed by the 3^rd respondent in I.D.No. 35/2015 dated 27.09.2016 and to quash the same with the

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶17

consequential direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all backwages and attendance benefits.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathya Selvi For Respondents : Mr.T.Ravichandran for R1 & R2 R3 – Court.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the award dated 25.04.2016 passed in I.D.No.35 of 2015 on the file of learned Labour Court, Tirunelveli, wherein the petitioner herein challenged the orders passed by the respondent management removing the petitioner from service.

¶21

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that in all, six employees were removed from service on the very same charge and all six employees have raised dispute before the learned Labour Court,

¶22

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶25

Tirunelveli in I.D.Nos.36/2015, 14/2016, 13/2016 and 37/2016 and whereas the petitioner herein raised the dispute in I.D.No.35/2015. All the said industrial disputes were decided by the learned Labour Court, Tirunelveli by an order dated 27.09.2016 and the challenge made there against by other co-employee of the petitioner herein in a writ petition was unsuccessful and the writ appeal filed there against was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 24.01.2018. Thus, it is submitted that in view of the fact that the very same issue has fallen for consideration before this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.16492 to 16495 of 2017 and the said writ petitions were dismissed and the appeal filed there against were also dismissed, the removal from service of the said employees had attained finality. In the light of the above, he submitted that the fate of the case on hand should also be the same.

¶26

3. This Court has carefully perused the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.116 to 119 of 2018 and the impugned award. Having perused the same, this Court is convinced that the very same issue, that are raised in the present Writ Petition have been dealt with

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶30

by the learned single Judge of this Court as well as the learned Division Bench and the claim of the co-employees of the petitioner were rejected. In the light of the same, the claim of the petitioner herein is also liable to be rejected. In this context, it is necessary to notice paragraph 17 of the order passed by the learned Division Bench dated 24.01.2018, which reads as under:

¶31

“17.When more than 2000 workers were reinstated and the Management refused to reinstate only six employees including the appellants, it would show the gravity of the misconduct committed by the appellants. When the Management was able to reinstate every worker except 6, definitely, it should be because of the past antecedents of the appellants and the indiscipline activities committed by the appellants. If they are reinstated, definitely, it will go against the interest of the very company itself and the working atmosphere will be affected. Therefore, we see no merits in these appeals. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. No costs.”

¶32

4. On a perusal of the above paragraph, it is noticed that the learned Division Bench dealt with the case of six employees including the four employees before the learned Division Bench and the petitioner herein as well.

¶33

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶36

In the light of the conclusive finding recorded by the learned Division Bench, this Court has no option except to dismiss the present Writ Petition following the order passed by the learned Division Bench.

¶37

In the light of the above and for the reasons assigned by the learned Division Bench in the order dated 24.01.2018, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. In case if the petitioner is entitled for any amounts, even after upholding his removal from service, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No.1 Management if not already released. In case, if the respondent Management has already deposited the amount with any other authority, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same by duly submitting the application in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

13.02.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)Nos.3226 of 2017

¶42

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶43

vsm