← Library
Madras High CourtWP/1620/2012allowed

The Zonal Manager v. The Presiding Officer

2019-11-20Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.1620 of 2012 The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Broadway Chennai - 600 108 ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chennai.

2.R.Mohan(Deceased) 3.T.P.Rathi 4.T.P.Usha 5.T.P.Vasanthakumar R3 to R6 are residing at 10/15, Gandhi Nagar, 6th street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600 118.

(R3 to R6 are substituted as LRs of deceased 2nd respondent as per order dated 13.11.2019 made in WMP.No.20361/2017 in W.P.No.1620/2012) ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.17/2010 and quash its award dated 24.08.2011.

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

For Respondent : R1 - Labour Court 1/4

O R D E R

The Award dated 24.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.17/2010 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is a Bank of India.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Management made a submission that the 2nd respondent was working as a Sweeper in B.Odaiyur Branch near Chidambaram. The 2nd respondent employee was unauthorizedly absent for many number of days without any permission or prior approval of the competent authorities. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent employee and after conducting the Domestic enquiry, he was terminated from service. The 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute, challenging the order of termination.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that even on 21.09.2004, the 2nd respondent was charged for the unauthorized absence for a period of 117 days from October 2002 till August 2004 and was imposed with the minor punishment of 'Censure'. The attendance particulars of the petitioner during the period from 1989 to 2004 are stated as under: Year No. of working days No. of days worked by him

5. Citing the irregularity committed by the 2nd respondent in attending the duty, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Management reiterated that the Labour Court passed an Award of reinstatement with 25% back wages. However, the Management has reinstated the 2nd respondent in service and he 2/4

was working from the year 2011 onwards. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent passed away, while he was in service on 21.02.2017. Under these circumstances, the question would arise, whether the 2nd respondent is entitled for back wages. As far as the reinstatement is concerned, the Award of the Labour Court was implemented by the Management in the year 2011 itself.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations of misconduct are grave in nature. Perusal of the statement of absence produced by the Management as stated above, this Court is of an opinion that the 2nd respondent was a habitual absentee and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the grave misconduct as per the Standing orders and the procedures were followed. He was terminated from service. However, the Management has reinstated the 2nd respondent into service and allowed to work till his date of death. The Award was passed on 24.08.2011 and immediately, after the Award, the 2nd respondent was reinstated in service. Therefore, the 2nd respondent enjoyed the benefit of reinstatement as granted by the Labour Court in its Award and under these circumstances, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that no work, no pay principle is to be applied. Factually, the 2nd respondent was a habitual absentee and this apart, he was terminated from service.

7. Under these circumstances, the principles of no work, no pay is to be applied and consequently, the 2nd respondent is not entitled for back wages of 25% as granted by the Labour Court. In view of the fact that the Award with reference to the reinstatement is implemented, the Award dated 24.08.2011 passed in I.D.No.17/2010 is quashed only in respect of the grant of 25% of back wages.

8. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kak 3/4

To The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Chennai.

2.The Zonal Manager Bank of India Zonal Office Broadway Chennai-108 +1 cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Company Advocate sr96769 W.P.No.1620 of 2012 aa09/12/2019 4/4