Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2923 (MAD)

C. Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2014-08-27

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner was employed as a Salesman in the Fair Price Shop run by the 2nd respondent. In culmination of a disciplinary proceeding, by order dated 12.10.1999, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.106 of 2009, on the file of Labour Court, Madurai. By Award dated 29.02.2012, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the reinstatement but without backwages. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of backwages by the Labour Court. Therefore, he is before this Court with this writ petition challenging the said award. 2. The facts of case would be as follows: The petitioner, according to the 2nd respondent, absented himself unauthorisedly for quite some time, as a result, the fair price shop had to be closed and essential commodities could not be supplied to the card holders. The 2nd respondent took every effort to find out the whereabouts of the petitioner. But, it proved futile. Finally, the petitioner's wife came to the 2nd respondent and produced the key of the fair price shop. The 2nd respondent rushed to the shop and opened the same in the presence of the petitioner's wife. When the stock was verified in the presence of the wife of the petitioner, it turned out that the petitioner had committed lot of irregularities, including deficit in stock, to the tune of Rs.6,70,205/-. On these allegations, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 25.06.1999. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, despite sufficient opportunity afforded. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, held the enquiry ex-parte and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service, by order dated 12.10.1999. After a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.106 of 2009 before the Labour Court, Madurai. The petitioner contended that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly and that there was no evidence to prove the charges against him. But, the Labour Court found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and further held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. However, the Labour Court, while considering the quantum of punishment of dismissal, took a lenient view and set aside the punishment of dismissal and instead directed him to be reinstated in service but without backwages. But, the Labour Court found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and further held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. However, the Labour Court, while considering the quantum of punishment of dismissal, took a lenient view and set aside the punishment of dismissal and instead directed him to be reinstated in service but without backwages. That is how this writ petition is before me for disposal. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter, narrating the charges, gravity of the charges, evidence let-in and all other details. The 2nd respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I have also perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the loss caused to the Society by way of deficit in stock was later on paid by the petitioner and thus the Society has not sustained any loss. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is entitled for backwages. The learned counsel would further submit that grant of backwages is automatic and denial of the same to the petitioner is illegal. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would vehemently oppose the writ petition. According to him, the Labour Court found the petitioner guilty of the charges but, in the matter of quantum of punishment, the Labour Court had taken a lenient view. The learned counsel would submit that grant of backwages is not automatic in a case of this nature. He would further submit that the petitioner had committed a serious misconduct of misappropriation of stock of the Society. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, denial of backwages cannot be found fault with. 7. I have considered the above submissions, carefully. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly has been answered negatively by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has given sound reasons. Even before this Court, the petitioner is not in a position to show that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly. It was an ex-parte enquiry because the petitioner did not participate in the same. Therefore, I concur with the finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry was held fairly and properly into the charges. Even before this Court, the petitioner is not in a position to show that the enquiry was not held fairly and properly. It was an ex-parte enquiry because the petitioner did not participate in the same. Therefore, I concur with the finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry was held fairly and properly into the charges. Consequently, the Labour Court had found that the charges stood proved. I do not find any reason to disagree with the said finding. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be equated to on the powers of an appellate court, so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence and substitute the conclusion of this Court in the place of the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court. Unless it is shown to this Court that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the same. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out anything even to infer that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. Therefore, I agree with the findings of the Labour Court that the Charges have been proved. 9. Now turning to the quantum of punishment, as I have already pointed out, the misconduct on the part of the petitioner is so grave that he has misappropriated the stock of the Society. However, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view in the matter of punishment. The 2nd respondent Society has not challenged the award of the Labour Court on this aspect. Therefore, I do not want to go into the correctness of the award of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. However, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for backwages. The reasons are more than one. First of all, it is only a case where the employee is exonerated from the charges, the grant of backwages will be automatic, provided the employee was not employed elsewhere gainfully during the interregnum period. But, in a case where the finding of guilt is confirmed and only lenient view is taken in the matter of punishment, grant of backwages is not automatic. Denial of backwages itself is a punishment. But, in a case where the finding of guilt is confirmed and only lenient view is taken in the matter of punishment, grant of backwages is not automatic. Denial of backwages itself is a punishment. In this Case, the Labour Court has denied the backwages, going by the gravity of the proved charges. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the award of the labour court in denying backwages. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit at all in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.