The Management Vs Kumar.K — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management Vs Kumar.K — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

WP(MD)No.877 of 2021 filed by the management is allowed and WP(MD)No.8067 of 2025 filed by the employee is dismissed; the award dated 20.09.2019 in ID No.16 of 2018 is set aside and the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority is confirmed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP(MD)Nos.739 and 17974 of 2021) are closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether non-examination of the passenger and non-furnishing of the documents would affect the disciplinary proceedings (domestic enquiry)? +1 more

Court's answer

First issue answered: non-examination of the passenger and non-furnishing of documents would not affect the domestic enquiry.

Ratio / Principle

The employee did not raise the plea of non-furnishing of documents during the domestic enquiry despite opportunities to respond to the charge memo, the enquiry report and the proposed punishment; he raised it only in his 2025 writ petition, so it appears to be an afterthought.

Key takeaways

A domestic enquiry is governed by the rule of preponderance of probabilities; the technical rules of evidence do not apply and it is not necessary to examine every third-party witness (such as passengers or the driver).ratio¶80
Merely because an employee has been employed for several years (with the Corporation since 1998), length of service cannot by itself be a ground to modify the punishment.ratio¶101
The employee retracted the statement made to the checking inspector; hence this is not a case of admitted misconduct, and the basis on which the Labour Court softened the punishment fails.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), B. Pugalendhi J. (single Judge): twin writ petitions against the award dated 20.09.2019 of the Labour Court, Kumbakonam in ID.No.16 of 2018 concerning a conductor of TNSTC (Kumbakonam), Nagapattinam Region who, on 09.02.2014 on route A-19, allegedly issued an old ticket to a passenger and carried excess cash of Rs.62/-. Charges were proved in the domestic enquiry; the disciplinary authority dismissed him weighing 64 prior punishments (three for similar misconduct), and the dismissal was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, invoking Section 11-A, reduced dismissal to an increment cut for two years with cumulative effect, reinstatement, continuity of service and 50% back wages. The management challenged the reduction (WP(MD)No.877 of 2021); the employee, in a 2025 petition, pleaded non-furnishing of documents and non-examination of the passenger and driver (WP(MD)No.8067 of 2025). Held: (i) relying on State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 and State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh (Civil Appeal No.7257 of 2022), a domestic enquiry is governed by preponderance of probabilities, not the technical rules of evidence; non-supply of documents and non-examination of passengers do not vitiate it, and the employee's plea was an afterthought raised for the first time in 2025; (ii) under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (per Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134), punishment may be reduced only on grounds such as disproportionality or mitigating circumstances, not sympathy alone; long service alone is no ground; the employee had retracted his statement to the checking inspector, so there was no admission of misconduct; the standing order prescribed dismissal and past conduct justified it. Accordingly, the Labour Court's modification was unjustified: the award dated 20.09.2019 was set aside, the dismissal confirmed; the management's writ petition was allowed and the employee's dismissed, with no costs.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award of the Labour Court, Kumbakonam in ID.No.16 of 2018 dated 20.09.2019, whereby charges proved in the domestic enquiry were accepted but the punishment of dismissal was modified to an increment cut for two years with cumulative effect, with reinstatement, continuity of service and 50% back wages; the employee's writ petition additionally challenges the preliminary award dated 01.08.2019.¶26
Labour Court, Kumbakonam · 20.09.2019
Prior proceeding
On 09.02.2014, while on duty in bus TN 68 No.0039 on route A-19 (Thanjavur to Sadaiyarkoil), the conductor was checked en-route: he had allegedly received Rs.5/- from two passengers issuing one old ticket from a previous trip, and was found carrying excess cash of Rs.62/-; the checking inspector submitted his report.¶36
Prior proceeding
Charge memo issued on 20.02.2014; employee denied charges; domestic enquiry on 18.03.2014 with defence assistant; checking inspector examined and 14 documents marked; enquiry officer's report dated 21.03.2014 held charges proved; show cause notice dated 21.03.2014, explanation dated 07.04.2014; second show cause notice dated 23.04.2014 proposing dismissal, explanation dated 20.05.2014; considering 64 prior punishments (three for similar misconduct), disciplinary authority dismissed the employee.¶40
Prior proceeding
The order of punishment (dismissal) was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.¶40
Prior proceeding
Employee raised industrial dispute ID.No.16 of 2018 before the Labour Court, Kumbakonam; the Labour Court issued a preliminary award dated 01.08.2019 and a final award dated 20.09.2019.¶23
Prior proceeding
By final award dated 20.09.2019, the Labour Court found all charges proved in the domestic enquiry and the dismissal in consonance with law, but, treating the employee's admission before the checking inspector as mitigating, modified the punishment to an increment cut for two years with cumulative effect and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.¶43
Prior proceeding
Pending disposal of the management's writ petition WP(MD)No.877 of 2021 challenging the modification of punishment, the employee filed WP(MD)No.8067 of 2025 questioning the punishments of the Labour Court and the disciplinary authority.¶29
Prior proceeding
Grounds urged by the employee in WP(MD)No.8067 of 2025: punishment imposed without proper enquiry (documents not furnished with charge memo or during enquiry), preventing effective defence, and non-examination of the passenger (from whom the old ticket was recovered) and the bus driver.¶29