Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1204 (MAD)

M. Gunaseelan v. The Presiding Officer & Another

2004-09-21

V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
Judgment :- The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in I.D.No.697 of 1991 dated 20.12.1995 and to quash the same. 2. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration, there is no representation offered on the part of the contesting second respondent/Management even though the learned counsel for the petitioner is present and ready to conduct the matter. Hence, this Court is left with no option but to pass orders after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in full consideration of the materials placed on record. 3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be known that the petitioner was a canteen worker with the second respondent having entered into the service in the year 1972 and made permanent on 30.1.1986. While so, he was served with a charge memo. dated 16.2.1990 by the second respondent/Management on allegations that (1) he committed theft of a bicycle belonging to a co-employee by name Santhanakrishnan on 13.2.1990 during the night shift and (2) that he threatened the security staff viz. P.M.Krishnan and Manickam on 18.2.1990 and 19.2.1990 respectively and also threatened the Personal Manager by name V.S.Vasan on the night of 20.3.1991 and a police complaint was also lodged against him on 21.3.1991. On the said charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted by the Management and having found him guilty of both the charges, he was terminated from the service on 6.7.1990 and since the conciliation proceedings initiated before the appropriate authority failed, the matter was referred to the Principal Labour Court, Madras for adjudication. 4. The Labour Court, would conduct a thorough enquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the workman, though no oral evidence has been adduced, 14 documents would be marked for documentary evidence as Exs.W1 to W.14 and on behalf of the Management, besides they examining their Personal Manager by name V.S.Vasan as M.W.1 for oral evidence, they would also mark 25 documents for documentary evidence as Exs.M.1 to M.25. In appreciation of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court having observed that when the co-employee Santhanakrishnan has not given any complaint to the Management and when the said Santhanakrishnan himself has excused the petitioner, the punishment imposed on the petitioner based on the Standing Orders of the Management is excessive and that the second charge framed against the petitioner is also not proved to the requirements of law and having observed that if the petitioner is allowed to continue in the respondent establish, he has to face different charges, has directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/= to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and other attendant benefits. It is only aggrieved against such a decision of the Labour Court, the petitioner/workman has come forward to file this writ petition. 5. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, regarding the first charge that the petitioner committed theft of a cycle belonging to one Santhanakrishnan, it is to be noted that the said Santhanakrishnan did not prefer any complaint to the police and on the other hand, a strong defence was put forth by the employee that by mistake he has taken the cycle of the said Santhanakrishnan and when it was informed to the owner Santhanakrishnan, he asked him to keep the cycle in the stand wherefrom it was taken. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner has committed theft of the cycle so as to hold him guilty of the first charge framed. 6. Even regarding the second charge that the employee has made threatening phone calls to his superiors, it has to be kept in mind that the petitioner is a member of the C.I.T.U. and therefore, is an eyesore to his superiors. Even the Labour Court has found that the Management has not substantiated its case by adducing reliable oral and documentary evidence in this aspect also. When the Labour Court has found specifically that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved to the requirements of law, it should have ordered the prayer of the petitioner i.e. reinstatement with backwages in the affirmative. When the Labour Court has found specifically that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved to the requirements of law, it should have ordered the prayer of the petitioner i.e. reinstatement with backwages in the affirmative. But, instead, the Labour Court has taken a flimsy stand that there are misunderstandings between the employee and the employer, which would lead to different charges against the employee, if he is ordered to be reinstated and has ordered a compensation of Rs.25,000/= to be paid to the employee by the employer, as stated supra. 7. In full consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that when the Labour Court has arrived at such an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges framed, it has committed grave error in not ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner with backwages and continuity of service. Therefore, the above Writ Petition is entitled to be allowed. In result, (i) The above Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Award dated 20.12.1995 made in I.D.No.697 of 1991 by the first respondent/Principal Labour Court, Chennai-104 is quashed insofar as its direction to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/= to the petitioner by the Management in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and other attendant benefits. (iii) The Award of the first respondent is modified and the second respondent management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages and other attendant benefits. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.