Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1286 (MAD)

P. A. Shanmugam v. Presiding Officer Labour Court

2013-03-07

M.JAICHANDREN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2013
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 9.2.2010, made in W.P.No.2303 of 2010. 2. The writ petitioner, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, is the appellant in the present writ appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3.1. The appellant, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, had been employed by the second respondent co-operative Bank. He had been appointed in the second respondent Bank, on 25.8.1990, on compassionate ground. He had been made permanent, on 9.8.1991. While so, he had been dismissed from service, on 31.8.1996, on the ground that he had produced a bogus educational certificate, at the time of his appointment in his service. It had been found that the certificate produced by the appellant belonged to some other person. The names of the parents shown in the certificate were found to be different. It had also been found that the appellant was not a student of the school which had issued the certificate. 3.2. The appellant had challenged the order of dismissal from service by raising an Industrial Dispute, under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute had been taken on file, by the first respondent labour Court, as I.D.No.94 of 1997. Three documents had been marked on the side of the appellant as Exhibits W.1 to W.3. 10 documents had been marked on the side of the second respondent Management, as Exhibits M.1 to M.10. The documents which had been summoned from the school concerned had been marked as Court Exhibits 1 and 2. During the pendency of the dispute, an exparte award had been passed in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the second respondent had filed an application to set aside the exparte award. The said application has been rejected by the first respondent labour Court, on 31.7.1998. Thereafter, the second respondent had approached this Court by filing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11262 to 11264 of 2000. This Court, by its order, dated 31.12.2002, had allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the exparte award passed by the first respondent labour Court and consequently, restoring the Industrial Dispute, on the file of the first respondent labour Court, for the disposal of the same, in accordance with law. This Court, by its order, dated 31.12.2002, had allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the exparte award passed by the first respondent labour Court and consequently, restoring the Industrial Dispute, on the file of the first respondent labour Court, for the disposal of the same, in accordance with law. After following the relevant procedures, the first respondent labour Court had dismissed the Industrial Dispute, on 14.8.2003. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the award, for a long time. 3.3. However, the appellant had filed the writ petition before this Court, on 6.12.2009, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, challenging the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997. The delay in filing the writ petition had not been properly explained by the appellant. 3.4. It had also been noted that a criminal case, in C.C.No.29 of 2002, had been filed against the appellant, under section 468 I.P.C. Even after the acquittal of the appellant in the said criminal case, by the judgment, dated 30.6.2005, he had not challenged the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997. However, the appellant had filed the writ petition, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, before this Court, after the lapse of more than 6 years. There was no proper explanation for the undue delay in challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997. In such circumstances, this Court had dismissed the writ petition, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, by its order, dated 9.2.2010. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had contended, inter alia, that the appellant had been appointed as an Office Assistant in the second respondent Bank, on 25.8.1990, on compassionate ground. On 9.8.1991, the petitioner’s service had been regularised and the time scale of pay had also been fixed. While so, he had joined the labour union and had agitated against the Management of the second respondent Bank, with regard to certain issues relating to labour welfare. Hence, the second respondent Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and had removed him from service stating that he had produced a false educational certificate at the time of his joining in service. 5. Hence, the second respondent Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and had removed him from service stating that he had produced a false educational certificate at the time of his joining in service. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had further contended that, in similar circumstances, the punishment imposed on the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had been reduced to increment cut for a period of three months, based on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. The learned counsel had further contended that the learned single Judge of this Court, while passing the order, dated 9.2.2010, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, had failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein, it had been held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning the delay in filing of cases relating to labour matters. 7. The learned counsel had further contended that the learned single Judge of this Court had not considered the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal charges levelled against him, based on the same facts. As such, the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 9.2.2010, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. The appellant had been appointed in the second respondent Bank, on 25.8.1990, on compassionate ground. However, it had been found that the educational certificate produced by the appellant was found to be a bogus certificate. Therefore, the appellant had been dismissed from service, on 31.8.1996. The appellant had challenged the order of dismissal passed against him, by way of an Industrial Dispute, in I.D.No.94 of 1997, on the file of the first respondent labour Court. The first respondent labour Court, after conducting an elaborate enquiry, had dismissed the Industrial Dispute raised by the appellant, confirming the order of dismissal passed against him. The labour court had passed the said award, on 14.8.2003. However, the appellant had not challenged the said award of the first respondent labour Court, for a period of nearly six years. The first respondent labour Court, after conducting an elaborate enquiry, had dismissed the Industrial Dispute raised by the appellant, confirming the order of dismissal passed against him. The labour court had passed the said award, on 14.8.2003. However, the appellant had not challenged the said award of the first respondent labour Court, for a period of nearly six years. Thereafter, he had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010, challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that no proper explanation had been given by the appellant for the long delay in challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge of this Court, by his order, dated 9.2.2010, had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, in W.P.No.2303 of 2010. As the present writ appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the second respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the contention raise on behalf of the appellant are not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. No proper explanation had been given by the appellant for the undue delay in challenging the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997. 12. Further, it is a well settled position in law that the acquittal of an employee, with regard to the criminal charges levelled against him, cannot be shown as the reason for the setting aside the order of dismissal from service passed against him. 13. The appellant has not been in a position to show that the award of the labour Court, dated 14.8.2003, made in I.D.No.94 of 1997, is perverse or contrary to law. Further, it had not been shown that it is based on no evidence. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 9.2.2010, made in W.P.No.2303 of 2010. Further, it had not been shown that it is based on no evidence. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 9.2.2010, made in W.P.No.2303 of 2010. As such, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs.